Marciele Junges’ Post

Perhaps the key question in further developing a subscription-based business model is how valuable your media outlet's journalism is to your potential audience. Thomas Baekdal: (…) Just reporting the news is a very low-value form of journalism. It's not zero because it's obviously useful to get the bigger picture. But on a value scale, it sits pretty low. What makes journalism valuable is when we help the public do something with it, like in the example Corinne talks about. This is when people start to notice. Beata Frąckowiak-Piotrowicz ? https://lnkd.in/gYcDbVKx

THE MEDIA WITH THEIR WORLDWIDE BIAS. Not all journalists are biased, but the number of them which is enormous. Journalists must investigate, verify the information , the sources if they are trustworthy before spreading the NEWS. Nowadays, mainstream media don’t care at all if their audiences are well informed about any topic. My book will guide towards a lot of things, nonetheless I’d lo mention two: 1- A journalist must be honest and in all circumstances, not good today and bad tomorrow. 2- The audience should also makes an effort, staying away from group thinking and trying to analyze, compare the facts before condemning anybody. That’s why I’d encourage you, regarding of your social class, to read this book, written by: BELIN B THELEMAQUE, a professional journalist , broadcaster, reporter and editor who worked overseas for multiple media outlets, including EL SIGLO( THE CENTURY), a Dominican newspaper, dedicating myself to writing books now, blogs , articles etc.. “THE DEATH OF JOURNALISM IN THE WORLD.” A book not to be missed, whether you like to read or not. It’s a MUST read book.. Then, it will be translated into five other languages: 1- SPANISH, 2-FRENCH, 3-ITALIAN, 4- PORTUGUESE 6-ITALIAN , If the mainstream media had done their job, the country would have been in a better shape now.

Navigating the UAP Universe: For Media and Journalists Are you a media professional or journalist drawn to the mysteries of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs), commonly known as UFOs? Do you want to explore this complex topic but feel overwhelmed by the vastness of information and diverse perspectives? I hear you! That's why I'm extending a hand to help you get accurate, informed, and insightful coverage of this captivating topic. How can I help Connecting you with credible experts and witnesses: I have a network of researchers, scientists, and experienced UAP observers across the UK and beyond. I can facilitate interviews with individuals who can provide firsthand accounts and deep knowledge of the subject. Debunking myths and misinformation: Uncovering the truth about UAPs requires careful analysis and critical thinking. I can help you avoid common pitfalls and misinformation, ensuring your reporting is grounded in facts and evidence. Providing historical context and current developments: The UAP field is dynamic and constantly evolving. I can offer insights into the historical significance of UAPs and keep you updated on the latest research, investigations, and policy developments. Organizing educational workshops and sessions: Want to deepen your understanding of UAPs and the scientific perspectives surrounding them?   Whether you're working on a breaking news story, an in-depth investigation, or a documentary series, I'm here to be your dedicated UAP resource. I believe in responsible journalism and I'm committed to supporting media professionals in presenting nuanced and accurate information to the public. Get in touch!

Fact Checking and News Credibility. In an era where information travels at lightning speed, fact-checking has never been more important. As journalists, we are tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that every piece of news we publish is accurate and credible. Misinformation, especially in today’s digital village can spread quickly and cause mistrust in the journalism profession. What exactly is Fact checking? It is the process of verifying statements, claims, and data before they are published. This involves cross-checking information from trusted sources and consulting experts to ensure its accuracy. Without thorough fact-checking, even well-written stories can quickly lose credibility. Credibility is the foundation of trustworthy journalism. It is what separates reliable news from rumours and speculation. Audiences rely on us to deliver factual and accurate information, and when we fail to do so, it erodes the trust we have worked so hard to build. Here is a quick guide to how I approach fact-checking: 1. Cross check sources/ Reference : I never rely on just one source. If I’m covering a breaking news story, I make sure to check multiple news outlets and official statements before publishing. 2. Identify the Original Source: Getting information second-hand can lead to mistakes. I always try to find the original source of a claim, whether it’s a government report, an expert, or a witness. 3. Check Dates and Context: It is easy to misinterpret data or quotes if they’re taken out of context. I always ensure I’m looking at the full picture. In a time when misinformation is rampant, the role of fact-checking has never been more critical. As journalists, we must uphold our duties of delivering truthful, reliable information. The credibility of our work and the trust of our readers depends on it. Have you used fact-checking strategies into your writing process? Comment the effectiveness of such strategies below. #FactChecking #Journalism #Credibility

"Objectivity" and its sisters "balance" and "neutrality" are still pervasive in discussions of journalists' standards despite having been largely discredited many decades ago. I was struck by this strange "retreatism" today when a new paper about coverage of Muslims referred back, way back, to Stuart Hall's classic paper, ‘Media Power: The Double Bind’ (Journal of Communication 24/4). Though published in 1974, it continues to describe many producers' approach to news judgment: << The men and women who produce programs are real social individuals in the midst of the conflicts they report. But ... the programs they produce are outside these conflicts, [which] is especially damaging for the viewer, who is encouraged to ... see himself as a neutral and dispassionate party to a partisan and impassioned struggle: the disinvolved spectator before the spectacle of conflict.... Objectivity, like impartiality, is an operational fiction.... The choice to film this aspect of an event rather than that is subject to criteria other than those embedded in the material itself.... Each decision to link this piece of film with that, to create a discourse out of the disparate fragments of edited material... partakes of the stock of social knowledge at hand which men employ to make sense of their world and events in it. Professionalism in broadcasting seems to serve as a defensive barrier which insulates the broadcaster from the contending forces which play across any proqram-making in a sensitive area. By converting issues of substance into a technical idiom, and by making himself responsible primarily for the technical competence with which the program is executed, the producer raises himself above the problematic content of the issues he presents. What concerns him is identifying the elements of "good television": cutting and editing with professional finish; the smooth management of transitions within the studio or between the program elements; 'good pictures, full of incident and drama.” The most pervasive of these semitechnical structures is that of news value itself. The... journalist... “knows a good news story when he smells one”; but few can define what criteria are inteqrated within this notion... [This] enables the editor to get his work done, under the condition of heavily pressured schedules, without reference back to first principles.... As the rift in the moral-political consensus in the society widens,... media cannot long retain their credibility with the public without giving some access to witnesses and accounts which lie outside [a perceived public-opinion] consensus. But [doing so draws immediate criticism] from both sides which are struggling to win a hearing for their interpretations in order to redefine the situations in which they are acting in a more favourable way. This is broadcasting’s double bind. >>>

A critical review by Mercy Chinwi on The Guardian, a widely recognized British newspaper known for its comprehensive coverage and liberal perspective on news and current events: The Guardian distinguishes itself with its investigative journalism, thought-provoking opinion pieces, and its commitment to environmental issues and social justice. It offers a broad range of content, from in-depth political analysis to cultural reviews, making it a go-to source for readers seeking well-rounded perspectives. The newspaper’s online platform is particularly commendable. It provides an accessible, easy-to-navigate site that’s updated throughout the day, ensuring readers have access to the latest developments as they unfold. The Guardian’s digital presence also extends to podcasts and videos, catering to diverse media consumption preferences. One of the hallmarks of The Guardian is its international outlook. With correspondents around the world, it brings a global dimension to its reporting, which is crucial in an increasingly interconnected world. In summary, The Guardian is a reputable newspaper that not only informs but also engages its readers in important conversations about the world we live in. Its dedication to quality journalism and its robust online presence make it a respected voice in the media landscape.

A Journalist Story Introduction Being a journalist is not quite easy. There is a story behind the story. It requires one to be time conscious, informed and ready to take risks. 1.Time Conscious. A good journalist respects time. Currently, in the global village, news happens frequently and is received instantly on mobile phones, tablets and computers. Journalists are obliged to strike a balance between being fast and accurate when reporting news. This ensures delivery of irrefutable information hence remaining reliable and trustworthy to the audience. 2.Informed. A good journalist should be aware of the most current and odd events of the day. What are the odd events of the day? The answer is quite simple, a dog biting a man is not news but a man biting a dog is news. 3.Taking Risks. 'Yesterday's headlines may not make today's front page but they could serve as a preview of future stories.' Journalists should normalize taking risks by emphasizing the value of past events in shaping future headlines. Even if these past events may not seem immediately relevant, they could lead to groundbreaking stories in the future!

When you're trying to stand out from the crowd and build an audience, the best feedback you can get when you ask people why they subscribe to your newsletter is that "you have different edge to the usual news services", and that they'll open your emails because they never really know what they're going to get. Trying to do the same thing better than media companies with more resources just seems pointless. We're intentionally trying to do something different at The Outlier, from our data-first approach to stories, to the formats we publish them in. We probably aren't to everybody's taste. But there are 9,500 people who subscribe to our newsletter, and many of them tell us why. That's how we measure of our worth and to us it's more valuable than journalism awards.

Different is better than better - Sally Hogshead I've been thinking about this a lot since I heard Lucy Kueng (Küng) mention it during a recent online discussion. In the media world, doing better journalism is widely held as a marker of our worth. It’s ingrained in our industry. But doing journalism better than our competitors is no longer enough. Readers are surrounded by news, even drowning in it. They have infinite options for news. So how do they choose? As publishers, we want to encourage loyalty among our readers. Doing better journalism might get us some of the way but does it make readers want to read our work every time we publish? For example, I get half a dozen email newsletters with the day’s headlines every morning. Picking which one I will open is a lottery. Without a clear favourite, I only have the subject line to go on. Very often I won’t open any of them. It’s not that any of them are bad, they’re all equally good. But that’s the problem. There isn’t much to differentiate each of them, and faced with the need to make a choice I will often not make one. There are other newsletters, however, that I open religiously the moment they appear in my inbox. I open them because they stand out as different to most other things I receive. Being different is something we focus on at The Outlier. Originally it was more of an accident but we’re trying to get better at it. Being different alone is probably also not a silver bullet, but quality journalism with a clear differentiation is a good start I think.

We expect that News channels should be unbiased. But each news channel is a extended hand of a political party which sets their narrative via the channel. Though they don't lie they categorically hide the news that aren't favourable to them, also repeatedly telecast such news that pulls the other side down, blow a small thing or leave some things that are bigger, Interpret the news in their own way to set the narrative of their master. I found an interesting definition of a person who needs to be a news anchor not on any journalism books but from spiritual commentary by a tamil Vaishnavite saint "Manavala Manunigal". In a context he states that two most important qualities are required for a person to write a book that lasts longer. One he states that "Yatha Darsana Samarthyam" means the ability to look at what exactly has happened and "Yathartha Drashta vadhithvam" means the ability to express that what exact message conveyed out of the incident what is seen. I think this holds good for the news channels and journalists. A good Jonournalist must have the ability to look the incident as it is without any of his biases influencing it and he must convey what he has seen in its own terms rather than adding his views. In fact every communicator must have this. The ability to listen fully and perceive it in the terms and context to which it belongs to and to communicate them to others without adding your thoughts and judgements to it. First one focuses on effective and proper listening and the second one focuses on effective and exact reporting. Thus listening means perceiving an information or incident in its true sense and expressing the same as per the context it belongs to.