Continuing on the ideas in the previous post, my goal with the project is to aggregate stories rather than articles, as these provide the necessary background.
This is not a story. This is an article
This is a story
China records no new virus deaths for first time
China records no new virus deaths for first time
|
China increases death toll in outbreak city by 50%
|
Opinion: The government is sharing misleading coronavirus figures - and it's dangerous
|
China virus cases 'may have been four times official figure'
Building on data that contributed to the reverse-chronological timeline of a story are the edits to stories that update the current piece, but don’t in a transparent way show the position of the article and impact it has already had. Say a story gets read by 90% of its readership before an edit is made to the title or body, this change should be given to those who read it.
http://www.newsdiffs.org/diff/192021/192137/www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/science/space/yvonne-brill-rocket-scientist-dies-at-88.html
NewsDiff keep a record changes to some online articles. This one was completely rewritten.
https://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/869642/diff/2/3
https://twitter.com/chrisnoessel/status/1251392814333587457?s=21
Explaining problems to people using perspectives may serve as a good method to communicate to a new audience who have otherwise not engaged with the content. There are countless examples online of satirical and exaggerated memes explaining issues with a news perspective.
Aligning these with a more formal representation of the idea afterwards could help more people engage.
https://twitter.com/flcnhvy/status/1251318202321305606?s=21
Another point is some criticism is easy to assume is face and ignore. However, publicly exposing a conversation around it enables people to get a better understanding of the truth without an authority telling you what the truth is.
Every social platform follows the same model of grow big then start censoring. We need a new model.
https://twitter.com/benthompson/status/1254327429318864896?s=21
This allows for a development to the story beyond both the publishing date and views of the writers and editors.
Here is one example of one writer publicly criticising the writing of academics in the Atlantic, with a discussion in the replies. For instance:
https://twitter.com/tculpan/status/1254580557792464896?s=21
https://twitter.com/marcstevenphoto/status/1258500439357734915?s=21
Another example of how this can be helpful is the correction of what could be considered false information but in this case stems from innocent ignorance.
In this case British tabloids accused Keir Starmer clapping as a publicity stunt, however, the cameraman was able to correct them.
This correction will not make it to future edits of the articles. Here is a problem I can solve.