I have a feeling that all News services on the ABC will be revamped come March, with the new corporate ‘oneABC’ design language and seeing as there will be set relocations after renovations are complete.
[quote=“MVP, post:491, topic:216, full:true”]
It sounds like it will be a bit BBC/SKY like with all their programmes look all the same… As long as they don’t bland it out [/quote]
I kinda like that consistency with Brands like how the BBC manages it, (similar logo, similar music style) but they still look individual from their partner services, but I agree, I hope they try to be creative with their branding approach across all brands if that’s the case in the future.
I also have a feeling the abc.net.au website will be revamped with the ‘oneABC’ design language and yellow colour scheme to suit the current ABC app around March, the current site is in a dire need of a redesign:
I wonder how the ABC will advertise the relaunch of not just the News service, but also the relaunch of ABC News24 as “ABC News”, Breakfast, and other services? I’d imagine that they’d try to use the return of Fact Check as a main point, but I wonder how’ll they’ll address the theme change if that happens, as it’s not only on air that will change.
I agree Stan is better than Leigh, but I don’t like Jeremy.
Yes that would be good; Emma is great.
Now if only they’d actually move Lateline to an actual ‘late’ time, instead of the too early time of 21:30 on ABC News 24; it needs to be live at 22:30 on ABC1, then repeated on ABC News 24 right after a short news update at 00:00.
YOU LIED TO ME BISCUIT.
Still 2 weeks in February left…
, relaunch probably won’t happen till ABC News breakfast moves back to its studios
But hey? March isn’t too bad right? I was afraid it may have been longer as @ABCNews had said we would have to wait a little while longer! Yes I may have been wrong about that, I was kinda basing it on other people’s opinions here on MediaSpy, but I also had a feeling it may have been early this year, as the ABC App relaunched in December, ABC Radio in January, and elements of ‘OneABC’ creeping in some recent promos. I hope I’m not wrong about the yellow used in tandem with the black and white contemporary theme! They’ve used it everywhere in the ABC App, and the 2017 Upfronts, I wouldn’t understand why they wouldn’t keep the new branding consistency with the relaunched News service.
Here’s hoping I’m not wrong!
I actually thought Jeremy is a pretty good presenter. He would suit well with 7.30. Although I don’t like Leigh Sales much but boy can she cut through the bullshit with politicans
Emma is fantastic, i don’t get why they don’t just her?
Thank you. What I’ve been saying for ages here.
I find this sort of Big Brother style push for “fact-checking” all public figures really troubling - the idea that one body knows and dispenses the truth. And it’s not just the ABC, but media like the BBC and NYT too, for example.
If a public figure blatantly lies in a material way, then that should be reported in the normal course of events. What this feels like is instead a far-left campaign, the basis of which is “oh Trump and the Brexit campaign lied, and were elected on that basis, therefore we need to introduce this measure to stop a similar platform ever being elected again”.
The reality is that such services are easily prone to bias in two ways - one, by the selection of statements for analysis, and two, by the emphasis placed on that statement as one used in an attempt to deceive, rather than just being used in the normal course of speaking.
It is why people such as Trump have been so successful in grabbing the “fake news” tag, used initially by Obama against Trump, and applying it to mainstream media. Trust in the mainstream media is at an all time low. While people recognise that Trump talks puffed up bollocks much of the time, what they see in the mainstream media is altogether more sinister, a campaign to deliberately withhold or paint news in a certain light, to advantage one side of politics.
To most people, that is more “fake news” than, for example, nonsense like Trump saying his hair is the “most beautiful hair ever”. In fact I can just see the Washington Post writing up their earnest “fact-check” now about how Trump’s hair actually isn’t the most beautiful ever, lol.
[quote=“Firetorch, post:502, topic:216”]
In fact I can just see the Washington Post writing up their earnest “fact-check” now about how Trump’s hair actually isn’t the most beautiful ever, lol.
[/quote]The same Washington Post which published leaked documents that just caused a senior figure in the White House to resign yesterday? WP is quite literally the most respected investigative journalism outlet in the US right now. They can say what they like right now, pretty sure no one is debating Trump’s hair being awful
As for Fact Check, I never quite warmed to it, but the basic premise hopefully gets reworked into something worthwhile. Stronger fact checking has caused a surge of subscriptions at NYT and WashPo and CNN’s ratings have also strengthened since they started being quite strict about factchecking, so there is a definite market for it as opposed to just letting bullshit from some quarters go unfiltered.
There’s only one Washington Post.
As to your totally unrelated point, the SMHOnline was blasting us with cabinet leaks throughout Abbott’s term as PM - this simply indicates that the paper has a sympathetic source in a position which is willing to leak information.
Nothing to do with the U.S. election last November, of course. All to do with their strict fact-checking, lol. I think we can term that statement of yours “fake news”.
Nope, the boost came after Trump was elected, indicating there has been a boost to mainstream media credibility after fake news emerged as a significant influencer in the US election. So, if fact checking has been so damaging to mainstream media credibility, why has it surged since the election?
- FT on December 5th 2016
- HuffPo on November 15th 2016: “Subscriptions to national publications have risen significantly since his election”
- CNBC: Tenfold increase in new subscriptions at NYT
Normally, the post-election effect is a bit of a downer, as audience numbers fall back to earth and the news cycle cools off following 18 months of intense campaign coverage. But nothing about 2016 is normal.
“We’re not seeing that,” said Thompson, speaking at the 44th annual UBS Global Media & Communications Conference in Manhattan. “We’re seeing, on the contrary, a surge. We expect the lively news cycle to continue in America — and given the events in Europe, beyond America — well into 2017.”
With this, I expect a few more Australian news orgs to start up their own fact checking departments fairly soon.
One non sequitur after another. Where do I begin?
Fake news did not emerge as a “significant influencer” in the US election. This is simply false. That you repeat it prooves you have a penchant for parroting statements you hear in the media rather than applying independent thought. This theory was raised in relation to a number of teenagers in FYR Macedonia compiling “fake news” articles to be spread on social media. That happened. Sure. Did the fact an article appearing on Facebook somewhere, labelled as being from truthnews.com, stating that “the Pope supports Donald Trump and that’s why you should” mean that a swinging voter (likely one who has voted Democrat in the past) in an area such as suburban Philadelphia, then, as a result of that, change their vote? If you can’t answer yes to that (you can’t) then don’t repeat the absurd proposition that fake news “significantly influenced the US election”. It is so ridiculous as to defy belief that someone would say it.
You’ve said readership surges “nope, had nothing to do with the election”. Rather, the “boosts came after Trump was elected”. That’s what an election is - a President is elected. Are you suggesting there should have been less interest in American politics in December, after Trump was elected, than there was in October? The media created a narrative whereby Hillary had a “98.1% chance of winning”. The election saw the candidate with a 1% chance win. Are you seriously suggesting this occurrence of a “1% chance candidate” winning then should have seen a decrease in subscriptions due to a general “post-election effect”? And that the only thing which otherwise stopped this apparently inevitable decrease was the establishment of fact-checking units at mainstream media sources? If so, you have a horrible read on the situation.
Your quote from Politico contradicts your own main argument (being that surges in readership etc. have been due primarily to the establishment of those fact-checking units, and that otherwise they would have dissipated post-election due to the usual “post-election effect”). Politico in fact states there has been “no post-election effect” because the lively news cycle continues. That is, there has been no change in narrative - the campaign against Trump continues to gather pace. Why on earth would you assume therefore that there should otherwise be a post-election effect where readership falls, if not for the fact-checking units? When at the same time you’re confirming the widespread view that the news cycle has not yet entered another phase?
I didn’t say fact checking itself has been damaging to mainstream media credibility. I said MSM credibility is at an all time low (this is the case in many countries, not just the U.S.).
See the following; trust in the U.S. mainstream media is actually at a 44 year low.
Further, I said that the public often views mainstream media as attempting to fit news into a certain narrative; that news in painted in a certain light. This is different to the NYT or anyone else establishing an “independent” fact checking unit.
- You ask why fact checking has surged since the election. Derr. That’s because Trump was elected. He was elected because dopey right wing citizens were fooled by fake news. These dopey citizens have to be schooled as to what real news is.
Your stated news organisations cater for a liberal audience. Of course they want to establish units that “prove the other side wrong”.
Your whole post is predicated on the notion that people read those websites, and subscribe to them, for fact-checking units, and that people hadn’t signed up before because this was something not provided pre-election. That is such ridiculous unprovable nonsense that that it doesn’t even pass an initial sniff test.
You say readership of the NYT has surged since the election. The esteemed 538 polling website also has something to say on ‘political news site’ surges.
but Breitbart’s growth has outpaced that of other sites in the politics category during 12 out of the past 14 months
Now, if I was as partisan and non-analytical as you, I would say that surge in readership was because Breitbart provides quality coverage that American voters are clamouring for.
In actual fact, what the surge says about Breitbart, and funnily enough says about the NYT at the same time, is that people, before, during, and after the U.S. election last November, are seeking out news sites that fit their own world view. Correspondingly, those providers in the middle are being squeezed out, and ultra conservative sites like Breitbart, and ultra liberal sites like NYT are seeing corresponding surges in readership. This is easily backed up by the fact the same thing is happening to politics itself, not only in the U.S. but Europe too, where, for example, centrist and middle-left parties like the Dutch Labour party are dieing.
- One smaller point on NYT - Trump makes no secret of the fact he reads it, and he clearly holds it in high regard, as shown by his visit post-election to answer questions from a pool of NYT reporters. I’d say he was always an avid reader of the paper when it was a newspaper of record, and as a 70 year old New Yorker that has read it longer than anyone, senses the recent unbalanced coverage, and this disappoints him. Just my two cents on that.
Wrong. SO wrong here. Fake news was shared by 23% of Americans during the election.
This is the only point I’m willing to address, either because with the others I either agree or think they’re overly nitpicky/off topic and mods will descend.
I’m arguing that fact checking and media showing some bite will improve media integrity and hold vested interests to account. The ABC, being neutral and broadly trusted by roughly 70% of Australians, is best positioned to fact check.
Fake news again from you, matlock.
This is what the Pew Research Center report actually states, based on a poll conducted in December last year:
about a quarter (23%) of U.S. adults say they have ever shared a fake political news story online
- This was not linked to the election period in any way, contrary to you saying “during the election”.
- These news stories were not necessarily linked to 2016 election issues either.
- This is a poll that states what % of respondents have shared a “fake news story” online. It is not a poll of the % of people who changed their vote and thus significantly influenced the election based on seeing a “fake news story”.
- I already confirmed that some fake news stories had circulated online.
Why don’t you actually address my real point there rather than misleadingly quoting those percentages to me?
This theory was raised in relation to a number of teenagers in FYR Macedonia compiling “fake news” articles to be spread on social media. That happened. Sure. Did the fact an article appearing on Facebook somewhere, labelled as being from truthnews.com, stating that “the Pope supports Donald Trump and that’s why you should” mean that a swinging voter (likely one who has voted Democrat in the past) in an area such as suburban Philadelphia, then, as a result of that, change their vote? If you can’t answer yes to that (you can’t) then don’t repeat the absurd proposition that fake news “significantly influenced the US election”. It is so ridiculous as to defy belief that someone would say it.
Don’t worry about that, these forums are dead and need some meaty discussion once in a while.
I’ve conviently numbered each major point for you, so no need to wade through anything you find “nitpicky” (ie arguments in response to your assertions that you can’t respond to).
Now you’ve changed your tune. Anyway, my original post actually explained why fact-checking can never be ‘neutral’.
I think the term Fake News applies to when News gets misinterpreted and makes out to be something completely different. Trump was a victim currently and during the campaign
Overall, about a third (32%) of Americans say they often see political news stories online that are made up.
The context of the poll was clearly political, done in the context of fake news being an election issue, and mentions political fake news explicitly. Further, do you seriously think that those same voters you called “dopey right wing voters” wouldn’t believe fake news? So which are they: dopey or not?
Nitpicking technicalities endlessly to dispute the widely established fact that fake news was a major driver of the election is akin to denying the existence of gravity.
Here’s an article I remember reading a couple of months ago from NYT which clearly demonstrates people were motivated by clearly bullshit anecdotal evidence.
[quote=“Firetorch, post:509, topic:216”]
Now you’ve changed your tune. Anyway, my original post actually explained why fact-checking can never be ‘neutral’.
[/quote]It’s a fair and reasonable line of argument, but I don’t particularly agree because there’s an important value in establishing a baseline consensus across society. Look at America if you want to see the future where both sides cannot agree on the most trivial of shit.
There will be instances when slipups happen. I’m sure someone will take it upon themselves to factcheck the factcheckers and catch the 1% error rate (hello Murdoch). Just because an idea isn’t perfect doesn’t mean it isn’t worth pursuing. Just like how the possibility of a car crash don’t stop us from driving. And how the mandatory need to wear seatbelts doesn’t prevent all car related deaths etc.