Journalists as Brands

in

This post parallels Piketty with new media personalities, arguing the current social context has created a cultural space for them to become "iconic thinkers". It is less about Piketty, and more about the social response to his book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century. 

"Turbulences of liminal time, be it social upheaval, cultural crisis or scientific paradigm shift, are conducive to the creation of cultural space without which iconicity of intellectual pursuits are unlikely... They emerge as icons within a specific constellation of relevant dialogues in the climate of particular idea- tional, emotional and normative expectations."

-- Dominik Bartmanski: "How to become an iconic social thinker: The intellectual pursuits of Malinowski and Foucault"

In the above quote, Bartmanski analyses the social context in which a particular thinker can become iconic. While his focus is within sociology, the construct is true across fields. Most recently, this can be seen in the sudden popularity of Piketty's book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which has had much critical acclaim. Yet, the basic theories of the book: rising global wealth inequality, the need for a global tax, are not in of themselves new concepts. So why are noted economists giving plaudits, and suggested the work has transformed our economic discourse such that "we’ll never talk about wealth and inequality the same way." It seems to be less about the work (which I have yet to read, but is no doubt superb) and more about the cultural space we find ourselves in. Piketty gave words to what people are feeling, and portrayed the trends people are seeing. 

This same understanding is relevant to big name branded journalists and their organisational counterparts. Wonks have stepped in and are gaining support as they try to deal with modern upheavals. Upheavals, plural, as these individuals come face to face with both a (1) macro change in the social changes following the financial crises and (2) a micro change in the industry upheaval occurring as news media faces digital disruption. It means these individuals are looked at as saviours in both realms (or rather, they have the potential to be seen as such). 

Some of these organisations will survive, and some will not. While there has been some concern over a wonk bubble - indeed, the number of outlets for these big brand journalists seems to be increasing almost exponentially -  "bubble" implies a pop. Yet, fizzle seems more appropriate. Felix Salmon writes that "supply creates its own demand, which creates more supply, and so on, in a virtuous cycle". These wonks are contributing to the upheaval and therefor the context in which one, or some, of these wonks may achieve greatness. It is also possible, as Salmon points out, that each wonk's unique selling point (and that of their associated organisation) will be incorporated into larger media products such that each will cease to exist as separate entity. 

"When an author’s work has staying power beyond its immediate context, something intriguing happens." According to Bartmanski, that something is the "iconization of intellectual pursuit". Piketty is well placed for this with regards to political economy. In media, the social and industry contexts currently in play means there is an opportunity to be more than just a wonk, but also an icon.  

*There are a number of new media personalities that fall into the wonk category, including Ezra Klein at Vox.com, Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com, Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept, Kara Swisher & Walt Mossberg at Re/Code, Bill Keller at The Marshall Project, and more. While some consider the explanatory and focus on data journalism (as is the case with Klein and Silver) to be the main method of new media wonk identification, I would argue to extend the definition to those individuals looking at topics across new media, but with a unique content focus or methodology distinct from traditional media. 

Further reading:

Journalist Personalities and Organisational Change

in

In media, cynicism takes two forms: (1) the cynicism embed by the organisation influences the reader; and (2) the cynicism of staff that impacts the organisation. 

There has been much research on the first form, called the spiral of cynicism. The concept essentially states that strategic frames used by the media when discussing politics activate cynicism in the public. The danger of this spiral, of course, is that "a cynical public can lose interest in political participation altogether".  Yet, this behavioural change -  non participation where there otherwise would have been activity - is not just true in the political sphere. It is evident across organisations and industries. 

Within an academic institution, for instance, a teacher's cynicism about the institution can have a meaningful impact on student performance.  This study found that organisational cynicism, that is "negative attitudes toward one’s employing organization that are composed of cognitive (belief), affective (affect), and behavioral (behavior) dimensions"* impact "factors such as organizational commitment, organizational citizenship, job satisfaction, organizational justice, and organizational climate."

The researchers discovered that "as teachers’ organizational cynicism perceptions increased, academic achievement decreased (16%); and as teachers’ school culture perceptions increased, academic achievement increased (13%)". 

The three parts of organisation cynicism - belief, affect and behaviour - may not be exhibited within media organisations specifically. Yet, the presence of cynical personality traits - used to find a story, hunt down a scoop and create a notable analysis - is likely to have a broader impact within an organisation.

There are number of implications of cynicism within an organisation including:**

  1. High and increasing rates of burn out among cynical journalists
  2. Reduced intentions to perform organizational citizenship behaviours 
  3. Increased likelihood to engage in unethical behaviours

Given this information, how do media organisations capitalise on the cynical personality tendency of their staff (one that is a part of what makes them successful) with the need to adapt and change and meet the changing needs of their audience in a time of disruption? Particularly when skepticism can lead to non participation. 

Then again, maybe I'm just an optimist. In the words of Julian Baggini, writer and founding editor of The Philosophers' Magazine "If there's one thing that makes me cynical, it's optimists. They are just far too cynical about cynicism."

*Full definition: negative attitudes toward one’s employing organization that are composed of cognitive (belief), affective (affect), and behavioral (behavior) dimensions which are (i) one’s belief that the organization lacks integrity, (ii) a negative affect toward the organization, and (iii) tendencies towards disparaging and exhibiting critical behaviors toward the organization that are consistent with these beliefs and affects

**These outcomes are amplified following layoffs

Further reading:

Mediascape or Media-escape?

in

The omnipresence of the media is summed up in Appadurai's use of the term 'mediascape'. The word is very well chosen because, like landscape, it carries with it not only the sense of omnipresence, but also the notion that people are immersed in the media which are largely taken for granted.

Audiences, Nicholas Abercrombie & Brian Longhurst (1998)

Most audiences are organised around discrete events - a show, film, speech, etc - but this has changed with the digital broadcasting schedule. Simple audiences became mass audiences and mass audiences have become diffuse. But, the need to identify based on the audience experience remains. However, the sheer number of media products make this difficult, as not all media products are meaningful to the audience. Resultantly, those that remain important are elements typically used to construct the individual's narrative. One goes to a classical music concert, one watches Jersey Shore while another watches a sports competition (or all of the above) - these become part of their respective identities. This is true regardless of whether consumed in the private or the public space.

The issue with the current landscape is that there is a "large and complex repertoires of images and narratives, convoluted mixtures of the world of news and the word of commodities" delivered to people throughout the world. News organisations are part of this. They add to and provide context to the saturated mediascape. Providing the words, images, that make up the narrative and influence a narrative.

Interestingly, newspapers used to counteract this inundation in part through the creation of a community. The consumption of news was a ceremony. The number, and variety, of people consuming news reassured the imagined world was rooted in everyday life. Newspapers linked the variety of images together temporally. Readers were unified in the publishing schedule. This continues to be true. However, they must also work to unify readers through something more. Newer, stronger (better, faster) communities should be created. Otherwise, these organisations risk users escaping, rather than bringing them into their personal mediascape. 

Media and the Stock Market

New research by the Univerity of Warwick investigates the influence of news publications (in this case the UK's Financial Times) on the stock market, and finds that a write up in a newspaper directly impacts trading volume of the stock the next day. The abstract:

Here, we exploit a large corpus of daily print issues of the Financial Times from 2nd January 2007 until 31st December 2012 to quantify the relationship between decisions taken in financial markets and developments in financial news. We find a positive correlation between the daily number of mentions of a company in the Financial Times and the daily transaction volume of a company's stock both on the day before the news is released, and on the same day as the news is released. Our results provide quantitative support for the suggestion that movements in financial markets and movements in financial news are intrinsically interlinked.

What is especially interesting is the time lapse between digital publication, print publication and a discernible change in the market. The research showed that the greatest impact rested from the print publication, not when written up online. John Authers, FT columnist looked at the research and noted: "the news continued to have an impact on the next day. As there are now many sources that should move markets more swiftly than a printed newspaper, this also implies that it was the news itself, rather than any editorial choice about publishing stories, that moved prices."  

To me, the main message is about market efficiency, and the fact there isn't any. Well some, but it is a weak form. Market efficiency, of course, suggests that markets take in all the information and prices adjust. Here, the lapse between publishing a story and the market impact suggests (for starters) that not everyone is aware at the same time. This suggests, however, that momentum trading strategies based on publication digital and print publication time differences, may produce a higher return.  

Already, many are starting to take advantage of this trading strategy based on social media trends. But, lets not forget that news agencies are often the ones to break the story, which is then propagated through other media forms. 

Next steps? Look at whether the sentiment of the article influenced trading direction. This has certainly been true in studies of google searches, and social media, which have been showed to correlate with trading direction. Is this also the case with the "neutral" news? Also, is this true of other organisations? Do less financial based news companies have less of an impact? What about broadcasting houses who comment on the markets? What about parts of the world with moderated/controlled media?

Further reading:

High journalism and low journalism

in

Historically, high journalism has largely been subsidized by low journalism. In modern times, however, the two are increasingly decoupled, largely because we can get the latter online in unlimited quantities, and people are willing to pay for the former.  While high journalism outlets are attempting to exist on their own through the use of paywalls or events businesses (in addition to various forms of advertising) around traditionally "high" content, low form companies like Buzzfeed and Gawker are moving into long-form and hard news articles.* Indeed, “viral news has been co-opted by advertisers, pranksters, political operatives and others looking to sell something” forcing these media agencies to evolve their offering.

Consider Buzzfeed, a website dealing with "low" forms of news.  It is a product designed for a new set of client who want to target a specific user- the bored at work crowd. It is responsive to its customers and focuses on R&D, and has shown remarkable innovation in its use of analytics, community and monetisation. The company’s focus on mobile only, as compared to “digital” is a forward looking response to current media trends. Now, the company’s ability to harness virality into revenue has allowed it to expand its content (including video and hard news content) and develop its business based on a committed user base. They have managed to become a news source to readers. 

But, if young, innovative firms gain the high journalism market, legacy organisations may not survive. Clayton Christensen’s theory of disruptive innovation suggests established firms fail not because they are unable to keep up, but because they are unable to pursue these innovations when they arise. And indeed, it is this newer convergence that legacy institutions seem unable to adapt to. The business environment makes them unable to dedicate resources to the new innovation, either because they feel unable to take resources away from a sustaining innovation (paywall, being one of them), or the company bureaucracy/identity does not allow for it.

Firms who succeed typically bring unique departments within their organisations that do this. And certainly, a number of organisations are looking at building these more innovative sites. The Trinity Mirror created UsVsTh3m, the Daily Mirror launched Ampp3d, and the Atlantic has Quartz. But, will these converged forms be enough? The next wave of development will now depend at how these will be brought into the legacy organisation, and whether they are able to act on this convergence/decoupling paradigm. 

*By high Journalism, I mean strong news reporting and investigation pieces (think Pulitzer). In this context, low journalism means diarists and parodists  (think The Onion, The Daily Show, Colbert, etc).