The legacy of Morley Safer

CBS News correspondent Morley Safer, seen here in 2010, died Thursday in New York. (Photo: Charles Bogel/US National Archives/Flickr)

CBS News correspondent Morley Safer, seen here in 2010, died Thursday in New York. (Photo: Charles Bogel/US National Archives/Flickr)

There are various reasons as to why we go into journalism. We pursue this work because it is a calling, because we have the ability to make a difference for the common good, and ultimately because we believe that the power of the written word or the broadcast segment evokes the ability to impact the civil discourse of our society.

We do this not for fame or for fortune, but for the ability to know that the work we are doing is making a difference, no matter what we cover.

The same rule applied to Morley Safer, the longtime CBS News correspondent synonymous with the program 60 Minutes. Safer died Thursday in New York, days after announcing he would be retiring from the network after 46 years on 60 Minutes, and over half a century with CBS itself. He was 84.

Safer did 919 stories for 60 Minutes over the course of his tenure, some associated with the currency of events, others to paint a portrait of the world and what makes it tick, in addition to its effervescent qualities. There were certain elements that became quintessential hallmarks of a Safer story for a viewer — from the language he used to the picture he wanted to paint, to what Canadian journalist Peter Mansbridge described as the broad picture, the world view, in an interview with Canada’s public broadcaster, CBC.

These were elements that were signature of Safer’s work, especially on 60 Minutes, whether it was his 1979 interview with actress Katharine Hepburn or his 1991 visit to France, to examine the global health effects of the country’s food culture.

His interviews were different compared to others one would see. He humanized personal interviews with celebrities, asked questions of key events here and abroad, but most notably, left us thought-provoking images and thoughts about how the world, and its key personalities, work.

Safer, born in Toronto, and who worked for Reuters, as well as CBC, before joining CBS in 1964, yet said that he was never comfortable being on television. For Safer, one suspects the story trumps the medium to which it is seen, and that the quality of the story is the only thing that matters.

This industry continues to change, and new platforms continue to become available beyond broadcasting and newspapers. Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat are becoming hubs for content. Yet, through all of the changes, there is one fundamental reason journalism continues to prevail. There’s always room for a good story, and that good storytelling remains the core ethos of journalism. Good storytelling can change anything.

The stories will continue, and though we will never again see a new story by Safer, he has left a prolific insight into how a good story should be.

He also gave us a reminder to us all, that in spite of the changes to come, journalism is still fundamental to society, and it is worth preserving, not just today, but every day.

Alex Veeneman, a Chicago based SPJ member and founder of SPJ Digital, is SPJ’s Community Coordinator and is a contributing blogger to Net Worked on social media’s role in the future of journalism. 

Outside of SPJ, Veeneman is Long Form Editor and a contributing writer for Kettle Magazine, an online publication in the UK. You can interact with Veeneman on Twitter here.

The views expressed in this blog post unless otherwise specified are that of the author’s, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the SPJ Digital community, the board and staff of the Society of Professional Journalists, or its members.


Journalism by Facebook

Journalism was a key component of Facebook's growth. Above: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. (Photo: b_d_solis/Flickr)

Journalism was a key component of Facebook’s growth. Above: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. (Photo: b_d_solis/Flickr)

The New York Times today published an interesting collection of pieces in its Room for Debate series on if Facebook is saving journalism or ruining it. The series of pieces comes amid accusations last week that the social network was suppressing content supportive of Conservative policies and ideas, and the release of documents giving guidance to editors on trending topics.

Since Facebook launched over a decade ago, it has significantly influenced how we communicate with each other, and ultimately, how news organizations communicate with audiences. Its relationship with journalism has evolved, from the fan page encouraging interaction, to recent new features including Instant Articles, where content from publishers is hosted on the social network itself, and Facebook Live, where any news organization in the world can broadcast a Q&A or do live reporting, all with the touch of a button.

As Annalee Newitz of Ars Technica wrote, Facebook’s role with some media companies became symbiotic, and the social network “could save both mainstream and alternative journalism.”

It was clear that journalism was essential for Facebook’s growth, and Facebook was essential for journalism to engage and evolve in the digital age. Yet, as the relationship evolved, it signified a wider change in the business of social media, as well as journalism. It became a mutual relationship, and though Twitter and Snapchat would later play prominent roles in social journalism, Facebook would still be at the helm of that change.

However, in spite of its advances, the relationship has its share of issues, particularly on the subject of its algorithm. More work needs to be done to address that relationship, and more accountability, as Robyn Caplan of the Data Society argued in her piece, needs to happen. Indeed, as I wrote here last week, Facebook and other sites should hire public editors, in the aim to improve the relationship with platforms and the public, as well as the relationship between social media and journalism.

There are also more complications, particularly when the social network looks to announce changes. As Catherine Squires of the University of Minnesota wrote in her piece, Facebook’s focus ultimately is on the advertisers and other entities that make it run, and when privacy settings are changed and the news feed itself is changed, that becomes prevalent.

“People who are shocked that Facebook might be skewing their newsfeed probably shouldn’t have trusted them with their news diet in the first place, given its history,” Squires wrote. “This is not the company I’d trust to tell me what’s important in the world.”

Nevertheless, Facebook remains at the helm of what is now the norm in the business of modern journalism, and though the relationship can be best summed up as mutually complicated, it is clear that Facebook continues to have the lead in the world of social journalism.

It is, according to Wired reporter Julia Greenberg, “the most powerful distributor of news,” as users flock to Facebook and other platforms instead of directly going to publishers and news organizations themselves, causing publishers to think twice about their engagement strategies.

Platforms like Twitter are at the center of reinventing journalism. (Photo: Anthony Quintano/Flickr)

Platforms like Twitter are at the center of reinventing journalism. (Photo: Anthony Quintano/Flickr)

Facebook and these platforms are not necessarily saving journalism. Instead, they are reinventing journalism, upgrading it in a multi-platform, content focused age. Journalism is still a prevalent part of modern society, and the principles and ideas that remain at its core are still present even as the mediums themselves change.

Yet, the focus is transfixed on the content, and of all the platforms, Facebook remains the most popular hub. However, journalism still remains a constant, signaling a positive notion for an industry that remains in a state of flux.

In spite of its shortcomings, the mutual relationship between Facebook and journalism will continue to be dominant in the industry, and while questions will continue to be asked within newsrooms about how to best engage audiences, the relationship signifies a bigger message.

Even though it is being reinvented, journalism is not dead. It is here to stay, and though the mediums change, the mission remains the same — to inform, educate and enlighten, something that will always remain a quintessential part of the business of journalism.

Alex Veeneman, a Chicago based SPJ member and founder of SPJ Digital, is SPJ’s Community Coordinator and is a contributing blogger to Net Worked on social media’s role in the future of journalism. 

Outside of SPJ, Veeneman is Long Form Editor and a contributing writer for Kettle Magazine, an online publication in the UK. You can interact with Veeneman on Twitter here.

The views expressed in this blog post unless otherwise specified are that of the author’s, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the SPJ Digital community, the board and staff of the Society of Professional Journalists, or its members.


Why Facebook needs a public editor

Mark Zuckerberg should hire a public editor for Facebook to benefit journalism's relationship with the platform. (Photo: b_d_solis/Flickr)

Mark Zuckerberg should hire a public editor for Facebook to benefit journalism’s relationship with the platform. (Photo: b_d_solis/Flickr)

It’s been a wild week for Facebook. The social network came under criticism this week for allegedly suppressing content that advocates Conservative policies when it comes to the content that appears on its Trending Topics list.

It also prompted a letter to the social network from John Thune, the Republican senator from South Dakota, with the senator saying if the bias were true, it was a violation of the values of an open internet.

The questions surrounding the allegations come as Facebook’s relationship with journalism continues to evolve. Facebook, according to a report from NPR, says it will be reviewing its practices and will be responding to the senator.

The social network has become one of the most quintessential platforms for dissemination of news, and a platform that news organizations have used to inform and engage audiences. Users flock to social media for news and information when they are on the go as well as to engage in conversations, which have become a signature of journalism in the 21st century.

The letter comes as documents from Facebook released to The Guardian newspaper in Britain shows guidelines similar to that of a traditional news organization, where editors are relied upon to exercise journalistic values in addition to the algorithms that sort the content for each user.

Yet as the questions continue, and as Facebook and other social platforms continue to be at the intersection of journalism for audiences, it perhaps could be time for Facebook to consider hiring public editors. They would, as Jeff Jarvis suggested in a post yesterday on Medium, not edit content, but be an advocate for the public. The idea also got an endorsement from Kelly McBride at the Poynter Institute, and it gets my endorsement too.

The rule however should not apply to just Facebook. Twitter, Google, Snapchat and others should also look into hiring public editors. These editors would be in a unique position to give insight on the core components of the interaction between users and these platforms, including the algorithms that shape these results.

Most importantly, these editors would help us better understand journalism’s relationship with these platforms, and how they can work better. It would be imperative for these public editors to be in place, and the quicker they are in place, the better the relationship will be for not just those who develop and curate this content, but for those who social networks, journalists and news organizations ultimately serve — the audience.

Alex Veeneman, a Chicago based SPJ member and founder of SPJ Digital, is SPJ’s Community Coordinator and is a contributing blogger to Net Worked on social media’s role in the future of journalism. 

Outside of SPJ, Veeneman is Long Form Editor and a contributing writer for Kettle Magazine, an online publication in the UK. You can interact with Veeneman on Twitter here.

The views expressed in this blog post unless otherwise specified are that of the author’s, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the SPJ Digital community, the board and staff of the Society of Professional Journalists, or its members.


Tell people what you want, give rewards: Twitter chat about comments

Ahem. First lesson I’ve learned form this is that Storify doesn’t appear to have a whitelisted embed protocol for WordPress blogs.
So, to read the round-up of tweets from Tuesday’s #SPJDigichat about comments, head here.

And if you know how to make the Storify embed work on a WordPress blog, let me know … in the comments.


Chat about comments with the Coral Project

Some days, moderating comments at stltoday.com involves a few quick looks as I juggle other tasks. Other days, it involves more time as I wade through hundreds of comments on a controversial article (or just one about a hot-button topic), trying to decide if this one is an insult, or that one is too racist to remain on the site.

The Guardian recently published the results of a study of the 70 million comments on its site (since 2006), and I found the results fascinating. And also the “Which comment would you block?” quiz that showed comments and the thought process behind whether to block the comment or allow it.

I was also frustrated, because the study showed an ability to sort through, categorize and analyze comments in a way that I can’t do with the current comment system stltoday.com uses. Facebook’s comment plug-in has advantages in tapping a system that millions of people use and reducing the number of anonymous commenters. However, it also is limited in tracking commenters, noting why certain ones were blocked or tracking moderator’s actions.

The Coral Project is working to “fix” some of the issues with comments on news sites. As its about page says: “We are creating open-source tools and resources for publishers of all sizes to build better communities around their journalism.” A better community is exactly what I want for the comments on stltoday.com. How can journalists encourage conversation in comments, not insults?

On Tuesday, May 10, at 8 p.m. ET, we’ll head to Twitter to ask Andrew Losowsky, the project lead for The Coral Project, why comments are important, how reporters can use comments and more. Check #spjdigichat to join in the conversation. If you have a question, tweet it with that hashtag, or email me at omalley.beth@gmail.com. I look forward to “seeing” you on Tuesday night!

Beth O’Malley is reader engagement editor for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and co-chair of SPJ Digital.

The views expressed in this blog post unless otherwise specified are that of the author’s, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the SPJ Digital community, the board and staff of the Society of Professional Journalists, or its members.


Now streaming: The world

They have been common occurrences in our Facebook feeds over the last few weeks — a news organization, journalist or publisher on the social network sends a notification to its fans that its live doing an event or doing a Q&A on a subject.

Whether its The New York Times discussing the future of Apple amid the conclusion of the company’s 13 year growth streak or the BBC World Service interviewing a German historian about the country’s past, live-streaming has become a new way for news organizations to engage audiences in conversations, as well as inform them about particular events.

The adapting of live streaming in social strategies comes as video becomes an integral part of social engagement, either through videos curated through Snapchat’s Discover channels, segments posted on Twitter or even short clips on Facebook and Instagram. Video has become a core part of engaging audiences on social, no matter the event, and live streaming would become an essential component of it.

Indeed, for video, its not just limited to coverage of news events and Q&As. Recently, Twitter announced that it would live stream 10 NFL games over the course of the next season, a move that is likely going to indicate more Twitter based content and video from news organizations and reporters who cover sports, not just for the NFL, but for all sports, including the forthcoming Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro.

More people are seeing journalism through live streaming, especially on Facebook. (Photo: Pixabay)

More people are seeing journalism through live streaming, especially on Facebook. (Photo: Pixabay)

Additionally, more live streams are likely to come from news organizations, whether its leading up to the final primaries, conventions, and indeed, the general election in November in the US, or towards the forthcoming referendum in the UK on its membership in the European Union, and its geopolitical implications. Live streaming is at the core for the strategy of social platforms, long marketed as hubs for the events that shape the world in real time.

Video continues to be key in engagement on social platforms. As a result, live streaming will be at its core, and those notifications you see on Facebook, and those posts about live coverage on Twitter, won’t be going away anytime soon.

While this remains mutually beneficial for both news organizations and indeed social networks, there is still a significant responsibility for news organizations when it comes to this content. If the content you produce is fair, accurate, impartial, and transparent, it will resonate with your audiences.

As I wrote in the lead up to SPJ’s Ethics Week (held last week), the influence of social media is still felt in today’s journalism, and the rules of ethics still apply, even if its on Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat or a different social platform.

After all, the content you produce for these platforms is not just to help engagement and the social strategy, but to do what all journalism does irrespective of platform — inform, educate and enlighten

Alex Veeneman, a Chicago based SPJ member and founder of SPJ Digital, is SPJ’s Community Coordinator and is a contributing blogger to Net Worked on social media’s role in the future of journalism. 

Outside of SPJ, Veeneman is Long Form Editor and a contributing writer for Kettle Magazine, an online publication in the UK. You can interact with Veeneman on Twitter here.

The views expressed in this blog post unless otherwise specified are that of the author’s, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the SPJ Digital community, the board and staff of the Society of Professional Journalists, or its members.


The SPJ Ethics Code applies to Twitter too

SPJ's Ethics Week, held next week, is an important time to remember the Code of Ethics, and how they apply to reporting on Twitter. (Photo: SPJ)

Ethics Week is an important time to remember the Code of Ethics, and how they apply to Twitter. (Photo: SPJ)

Next week is Ethics Week here at SPJ, a time to celebrate the Code of Ethics, and to examine and consider its four principle values in journalism — to seek truth and report it, minimize harm, be accountable and transparent, and act independent.

The subject for this year’s Ethics Week is best practices in new technology, including social media. Social media, most notably Twitter, has had significant influence in not just how people consume journalism, but how it can enhance the journalism that we practice. We use Twitter to curate conversations, reach out to sources, but most importantly, report, engaging audiences through 140 character messages, challenging and complementing the traditional means of storytelling.

It is therefore important to consider the four principles of the SPJ Code of Ethics and how they apply to journalism by Twitter.

Seek truth and report it: Twitter is another platform for your journalism, and the rules for fair, impartial reporting apply. Report what you know. If you are reporting while trying to confirm a specific piece of information, tell your audience about the report, credit the report, and say you are working to confirm it. Additionally, for curating conversations, ensure all sides of the conversation are being shared. As my SPJ colleague Lynn Walsh wrote here earlier this year, look for all sides of the conversation as you would for any other story.

Most importantly, accuracy is key. It is more important to be right rather than be the first one with the story. Your audience will thank you for it.

Minimize harm: When it comes to breaking news, including disasters, you should be respectful of your sources as if you were interviewing them face to face. If you are asking for an interview over Twitter, be considerate in the language you use to ask for an interview. If the source declines, move on.

When interviewing, show compassion for those who have been impacted by events, and consider if the information you are being told is important to the story you’re telling. In this case, not everything you’re told is essential, so consider what is necessary to inform while balancing the privacy of a source.

Be accountable and transparent: Honesty is a quintessential part of the relationship between you and your audience. As I wrote here last month, an honest reporter is a forthright reporter, and audiences appreciate forthright reporters, for they’ll trust you and come back to you for information in the future. Do not be afraid to cite — do it early and often. Identify all of the angles. If there is a mistake, own up to it and correct it. Don’t let it wait.

Honesty is the best policy — and it will serve you well. You know what you know, and that is all that you know.

Act independent: Disclose any conflict of interests with your audience, and if you encounter a source on Twitter that pays you for information, refuse it. As mentioned earlier, cite and identify your reports clearly and correctly, and distinguish between what is news and what is advertising.

Most importantly, tell the story the way it is meant to be told, without bias or pressure to influence coverage, irrespective of beat, and reject pressure raised by advertisers, donors, organizations, or others that would impact your story.

Twitter has shaped how we practice journalism today in many ways. We must be able to practice it the way it should be practiced — fairly, impartially, accurately, and ethically, no matter the platform, not just for us, but ultimately the people we work for, our audiences.

Ethics Week is April 24-30. SPJ’s Ethics Committee will have blog posts on the subject over the course of the week on Code Words, the Committee’s blog.

Alex Veeneman, a Chicago based SPJ member and founder of SPJ Digital, is SPJ’s Community Coordinator and is a contributing blogger to Net Worked on social media’s role in the future of journalism. 

Outside of SPJ, Veeneman is Long Form Editor and a contributing writer for Kettle Magazine, an online publication in the UK. You can interact with Veeneman on Twitter here.

The views expressed in this blog post unless otherwise specified are that of the author’s, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the SPJ Digital community, the board and staff of the Society of Professional Journalists, or its members.


Informing and engaging through Twitter

A new report suggests Twitter is responsible for 1.5 percent of traffic to news organizations' web sites. (Photo: Pixabay/CC)

A new report suggests Twitter is responsible for 1.5 percent of traffic to news organizations’ web sites. (Photo: Pixabay/CC)

New data released Wednesday suggested some interesting conclusions about Twitter. The data, compiled by the social media analytics firm parse.ly, suggests that while Twitter has significant influence, it doesn’t help when it comes to traffic for news organizations.

The data says that 1.5 percent of traffic from 200 of the firm’s clients web sites within the last two weeks came from Twitter, and the report raised questions about Twitter’s role in journalism.

I disagree with the report’s findings. Twitter as a platform is more than just about linking to news. Twitter has become itself a platform for news. We use the platform to curate a conversation on issues, to help us find sources to tell stories, but most importantly, to inform.

Indeed, many users flock to Twitter to catch up on the events around them, even in circumstances where they may not have time to look at an organization’s web site. The ability for them to stay on top of the news can come in the 140 character live-wire messages that is a quintessential component of the social network’s distinctiveness in the marketplace, all customized to their interests and to what they need to know to plan for what’s ahead. For them, 140 characters can tell the story.

Twitter does have issues that it has to face and questions that it has to answer when it comes to future. Yet in spite of all of its faults, Twitter has become important to supporting the future of journalism, and has become just as essential of a platform to engage and inform audiences on the events of the day.

In this increasingly digital age, for news organizations, it is more than just the traffic to web sites. It is how much engagement that can be done on all platforms — print, broadcast, or digital, and what can be done with that reach combined.

Twitter is a part of that engagement, and has allowed journalists and news organizations the ability to practice the fundamentals of journalism — informing, educating, entertaining and enlightening. It may not be traffic to your web site, but it is traffic and engagement with you, your organization, and your journalism, something that must never be taken for granted.

Alex Veeneman, a Chicago based SPJ member and founder of SPJ Digital, is SPJ’s Community Coordinator and is a contributing blogger to Net Worked on social media’s role in the future of journalism. 

Outside of SPJ, Veeneman is Long Form Editor and a contributing writer for Kettle Magazine, an online publication in the UK. You can interact with Veeneman on Twitter here.

The views expressed in this blog post unless otherwise specified are that of the author’s, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the SPJ Digital community, the board and staff of the Society of Professional Journalists, or its members.


One experience can change everything

The SPA member badge, which is displayed on my web site. (Photo: SPA)

The SPA member badge, which is displayed on my web site. (Photo: SPA)

This weekend, in Loughborough in the English Midlands, a few of my colleagues and their peers are getting together for the Student Publication Association‘s annual conference.

At the helm of the conference are sessions on honing the journalistic craft, alongside awards, networking and the ability to celebrate the work of these student publications up and down the UK.

The timing of their meeting comes at an interesting time for media in Britain, as The Independent, once the UK’s youngest newspaper, ended a 30 year run in print to become a digital only publication.

In addition, there are continued talks in Parliament about the future of the BBC, as its Royal Charter comes up for renewal next year, as the publications owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation continue to make headlines ahead of Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking.

Indeed, student media in the UK too has not had it easy recently, something observed in my writing and coverage of British media, from censorship of The Badger, the student newspaper of The Badger at the University of Sussex in southern England in the beginning of the academic year, to the threat of expulsion raised by University College London against one of its students, Rebecca Pinnington, for something she wrote for Pi Media, the university’s student media hub.

Yet, aside from the questions surrounding the future of media in the UK, and the issues surrounding student media, there is a common thread between my colleagues and their peers. Indeed, it is the reason why people the world over go into journalism — they do it not to seek fame or fortune, but to do a service for their communities, large or small, irrespective of beat.

Many of those in attendance at that conference are either journalism students, or students studying a variety of subjects, including English Literature, History, Politics and Economics, hoping to either pursue an MA in journalism or go to a training course to obtain an NCTJ (National Council for the Training of Journalists) qualification. They’ve done work placements at broadcasters, newspapers or web sites, and also worked in student media.

But irrespective of what they study, and the route they plan to take, they all have one thing in common — they believe in journalism and the Fourth Estate, the role it has in a democracy, and the role it can have to help millions of people cope better with the world around them. All they want to do is tell stories and make a difference. They want to be a part of journalism’s future, even as the industry itself around the world goes through changes.

I think of this as this week marks four years since I joined Kettle Magazine, a fellow SPA member (I also, for the record, hold a personal membership with the Association). Even though I am working 3,000 miles away from the UK, I have been able to receive a unique education.

The people I have met, who have become my friends, and the ability to help the next generation of journalists ignited the passion for why I wanted to go into journalism, and the sort of work I want to do. Its a reason why I signed up to be an SPA member, and why recently I renewed my membership with SPJ for another year. Its an education I am deeply grateful for, an education I hope to continue receiving, and an education I hope I can experience on the ground in due course.

They’ve also reinforced one other thing — irrespective of platform, and where the industry goes, there is always going to be a need for journalists. Indeed, even in this digital age, no matter what country your from, it takes one experience to remind you why you sought to enter this profession, and the rewards that come from it.

And that is worth celebrating, not just today, but every day.

Alex Veeneman, a Chicago based SPJ member and founder of SPJ Digital, is SPJ’s Community Coordinator and is a contributing blogger to Net Worked on social media’s role in the future of journalism. 

Outside of SPJ, Veeneman is Long Form Editor and a contributing writer for Kettle Magazine, an online publication in the UK. You can interact with Veeneman on Twitter here.

The views expressed in this blog post unless otherwise specified are that of the author’s, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the SPJ Digital community, the board and staff of the Society of Professional Journalists, or its members.


Point Taken and the new social media conversation

Carlos Watson moderates a debate on the American Dream from Point Taken, airing on PBS. (Photo: Meredith Nierman/WGBH)

Carlos Watson moderates a debate on the American Dream from Point Taken, airing on PBS. (Photo: Meredith Nierman/WGBH)

Social media has allowed us to do many things in journalism, from help tell a story and inform new audiences, to curate a conversation on various subjects. For WGBH, they have shown social media can do that and then some through the new program Point Taken.

Point Taken, a late-night, weekly debate on a current affairs topic, presented by Carlos Watson, premiered last night on PBS and is produced by the Boston based public media station. The subject was the future of the American Dream, and at the core of the conversation was social media, utilizing the hashtag #PointTakenPBS.

Yet, how social media was portrayed was different compared to most current affairs programs on television that discusses topical subjects. Tweets had appeared on screen, but also data of interaction was also present, indicating how many users were tweeting with the subject at that given time. It gave a visual complement to the discussion, allowing audiences to see a full lens of the conversation.

There was also the ability to vote on whether the American Dream was dead or alive, data which was shown on Twitter, as well as the ability to use polls to gain more insight into the thoughts of viewers.

However, the prevalence of social is not exclusive to a half hour broadcast. Other platforms had been used, including Facebook for engagement and interaction, as well as Snapchat, where through a filter audience members could record their thoughts on the subject being debated. Point Taken having a platform on Snapchat is part of a number of WGBH produced programs signing on to the platform, notably the current affairs documentary program Frontline and the science documentary program Nova.

In addition, the first episode is available to watch again (or to view if you missed last night’s airing) on Facebook, through PBS’ fan page.

The subjects will change from week to week, but one thing is for certain. WGBH and Point Taken have revolutionized how social media is used to curate a conversation, and has allowed new ways for public media as a whole to engage with younger audiences. It is a strategy that is inspired, and can go a long way in engaging new audiences and retaining current ones.

Tuesday was a win-win scenario for WGBH and for this industry, allowing not just for a discussion on the future of the American Dream, but also how social media can be used to enhance and innovate journalism, making it better for those curating the content, and, most importantly, those consuming it.

Alex Veeneman, a Chicago based SPJ member and founder of SPJ Digital, is SPJ’s Community Coordinator and is a contributing blogger to Net Worked on social media’s role in the future of journalism. 

Outside of SPJ, Veeneman is Long Form Editor and a contributing writer for Kettle Magazine, an online publication in the UK. You can interact with Veeneman on Twitter here.

The views expressed in this blog post unless otherwise specified are that of the author’s, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the SPJ Digital community, the board and staff of the Society of Professional Journalists, or its members.


Connect

Twitter Facebook Google Plus RSS Instagram Pinterest Pinterest LinkedIn


Copyright © 2007-2016 Society of Professional Journalists. All rights reserved. Legal

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center, 3909 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 | Fax: 317/920-4789 | Contact SPJ Headquarters | Employment Opportunities | Advertise with SPJ