The new Scoop should have a clear seperation between original content and PR
Harry Chapman
Public
Seen by 141
Just an idea I thought I'd throw out to you all for discussion: the new scoop should have a separation between opinion pieces and press releases.
I.e. if you want blog posts and editorial pieces, you go to Pundit or Werewolf or something similar. If you want press releases hot off the PR-keyboard, go to scoop.co.nz. Basically a clear separation between original content and straight PR.
I find the mix of stuff at scoop.co.nz at the moment a bit confusing - what exactly is it serving up?
Alastair Thompson Thu 26 Feb 2015 9:28PM
Hi,
I am a little anxious not to discourage this useful feedback. But the way Loomio provides only 250 characters for decision reasons prevented me from providing a longer explanation.. I therefore decided to block this proposal (which in Loomio is something that anyone can do - but for the sake of a harmonious community is in general a bad thing to do).
However for the reasons below I felt that it was important that I do so in order in part to clarify the general case as well as the specific case.
The feedback on this issue is important and it is feedback which we already intend to take into account when we start redesigning the information architecture around Scoop.
Scoop unlike some of our dopple-gangers (most notably voxy.co.nz ( http://voxy.co.nz )) does already very clearly label all Press Release as "Press Release" in the header of the item and also clearly attributes a byline to the content. Most Press Release content also includes the words "Press Release" in the body content. And on Google news Scoop's Press Release content and indeed some content which is not Press Releases is usually labelled "(press release" when it is linked to.
So the issue is not one of a an absence of clear notification but possibly one of emphasis.
There is possibly a wider issue however around this which relates to how Scoop treats press release content and editorial content within its "information schema" - this part of the Scoop design is one of its oldest features and it has to some extent proven itself over time. However as Scoop's editorial content has grown the distinction has become more and more of an issue. Scoop's view - unlike most editorial organisations - is not that editorial content is inherently superior. In many cases the original "announcement" of news from the horse's mouth is in and of itself extremely news worthy - and the fact that it is the full unadulterated announcement has a specific quality that Scoop's readers find very useful.
With breaking news you will notice that Scoop will often lead with press releases or speeches (for example with the announcement that we were going to war). And we do so because it is that quality of Scoop which is at the heart of the value that Scoop provides.
That said making the distinction clearer in design terms (without demoting PR content) is something which would undoubtedly would be useful.
If the original proposer wishes to restate their proposal in terms of a reccomendation that when Scoop does its redesign process this issue should be one of the key issues which should be dealt with I will happlily support it. However in the terms that the original proposal was posted I thought there was a risk that some in this support group might consider that it had a governance role in Scoop which at this point it doesn't have.
Alastair
Harry Chapman Thu 26 Feb 2015 9:47PM
Hi Alastair, sorry for posting a proposal which oversteps the boundaries of this exercise! I can't edit the proposal now people have voted for it. But I'm happy to resubmit it when it closes using language which makes it explicit that it's a recommendation.
(I was just assuming that you would take anything this group decided as nothing more than a recommendation!)
Alastair Thompson Thu 26 Feb 2015 10:50PM
I expected that was the case Harry.
All good. And in fact the wording "should" is more in the manner of advice rather than an instruction anyway.
Nevertheless I thought it would be helpful for us all to make it completely clear. And thereby avoid future misunderstandings.
alastair
Jason Brown Fri 27 Feb 2015 1:12AM
This raises a question I had been wondering about these last few weeks.
Should proposals be put up to start feeling the way towards concrete proposals? For example, "Journalism is a public good?" or "Journalism funding should include public funding?"
Or do we need to be less / more specific, or, wait for Scoop lead on this?
Or put this question into the form of a proposal ? :)
jason brown
...
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:50:09 +0000
Alastair Thompson Fri 27 Feb 2015 2:06AM
You can make proposals about what ever you want and we can agree or disagree about them.
Right now I would be particularly keen to see proposals about things related to promotion of the crowd-funding campaign :)
I think the only point I am trying to make is that we shouldn't have proposals which seek to direct Scoop. Those ones should be framed as recommendations.
Hopefully this is relatively clear.
alastair
Harry Chapman · Wed 28 Jan 2015 3:48AM
My point is that I don't think being marked at the top of the page is sufficient. I almost never look at which "wire" it's under, and my guess would be that almost everyone is in the same boat.
There are also projects like Wellington.Scoop, which while incredibly valuable, is a strange mix of guest posts by people in the community and press releases. People should by all means have a platform, but why does it have to be in the same place?
Overall, my point is that when people go to scoop they should know what they're coming for. Is it press releases or is it guest blog posts/original content? I think it's confusing if those two things co-exist on the same site (even if they are in different "wires"/categories"). But that's just my view, and I take your point Alastair that this is a pretty fundamental point of contention :-)