Beefing up SM to counter MSM

Social Media could be utilised to a greater degree to counter the bias we are seeing in Mainstream News Media (MNM). I am thinking of a one-stop shop, a digital newsroom where the news is analysed, torn apart, reviewed and rewritten in a BALANCED way. A video room for viewing relevant stuff. Workshops for citizen journalists. The usual links to resources.

There are many websites that present excellent articles. This diversity is good, but these websites can be hard to find. I’m thinking more of ONE PLACE where the main news items can be examined in detail. It can also be a place where overlooked or inadequately covered items are discussed.

That’s my idea, but don’t be limited by my thinking (as I am, lol). Think about how a one-stop shop could counter MSM bias and BE ATTRACTIVE and ACCESSIBLE to people seeking a decent news coverage. Mobile phone viewing and downloading might be neccessary (out of my field I’m afraid), Twitter and Facebook sites probably mandatory.

Have a think. Have a go. Please keep it clean and RELEVANT. Use the Comment box below.


15 thoughts on “Beefing up SM to counter MSM

  1. Excellent idea. Would love to have a place eg like snopes that pulls apart all these so called facts.

  2. What about a community based website Barry where people can log in and post their articles ideas and a learning centre etc my son can help with setting up a website if he is required

  3. Sounds good Kate. It’s grass roots after all. But I like the idea of a central point (for those against LNP election) discussing or analysing issues and also linking to important information sources like IA, New Matilda, Australians for Honest Politics, Global Mail, etc

  4. I like the concept Barry, because of the ease of access to SM by anyone including the extremist and disingenuous of all kinds SM has the propensity to become even more irrelevant and disruptive than MSM. (which is supposed to be self regulating). Self regulation only works when it is SEEN to work, a subjective observation at best but I think there are enough fair minded people out there to make your idea viable. But it must be SEEN to be honest, factual and balanced. If it is you will attract the right kind of people and by that I mean decent people of good intent.

    • “Honest, factual and balanced” is exactly what I had in mind Bill. You can sway some of the people with a biased argument, but that becomes a trap. Alternatively, a consistently balanced presentation builds a reputation for honesty and reliability.

      Open access would make the site vulnerable to the sort of inaccurate and insulting rubbish that is posted by idiots expressing their right to free speech.

      What we need now is a panel of dedicated editors to select a range of balanced material and to write objective analysis when necessary. They will have work without pay.

  5. I agree Websites are hard to find and so are topics within sites. Lots of Blogs are terrific but it is hard to know which ones specialise in what topics and perspectives. I like the idea of a consolidated site. It would need to be set up with categories, effective tags and a really good internal search mechanism.

  6. I’d want to leave the analysis to people better qualified than myself (like Barry and Margo), but I’d be OK with filtering input and deleting the crazies (on a voluntary basis).

  7. I like the idea and agree with the gist of the comments to date. Have to consider how to increase the users without attracting crazies or a way of filtering them. There a possibility “of preaching to the converted” to be considered.

  8. Barry sounds like a great initiative! Have encouraged Wentworth Group and parties to develop online resources for media. Ready made packages that can be lifted by MSN to overcome ongoing resource constraints and pressures of 24 he news cycle. In case of Wentworth Group suggested these would include virtual reality of key environmental issues eg climate change etc etc easy lift for news etc.

    Why I mention this is, to be successful this initiative needs a few key things: reputation, profile, consumer trust, accessibility/ease of use, resources to maintain/host etc.

    These might only be able to be archived by collaboration (obviously starts with journos/researchers etc as u suggest) but perhaps there are synergies with other groups that could enable the resourcing of other components?

    • Interesting. AAP provides sub-edited, page packages for some clients, including in the UK. So, I guess what Wentworth Group is doing is somewhat similar.

  9. Above or below stories there could be a set of check boxes: [] Facts checked, [] Sub-edited, [] Proof-read, [] Balanced, etc. Readers assume these things are done. If used, such a feature must be handled with absolute honesty — no fudging.

Comments are closed.