Summary of “The Future of TV Is About Couch Shows vs. Phone Shows”

At first by circumstance, and now by design, this is how I organize my television diet: couch shows and phone shows.
It’s well known by now that Americans have changed the way they watch TV. People pull content from Hulu rather than have it pushed to us by CBS. DVRs allow for shifted viewing times and skipping ads.
Consumers are now, often unconsciously, sorting every media product-from podcasts to magazine stories to video-into three categories: intentional, interstitial, and invisible.
Intentional media are the handful of offerings that we plan in advance to experience and then carve out particular chunks of time to enjoy.
For me, these are the couch shows like Better Call Saul and very little else.
For me, these are the articles saved on Instapaper, audiobooks, and phone shows like Billions, which I enjoy immensely but have never seen inside my own home and have rarely watched in segments longer than a half hour.
Examining the media ecosystem through these three lenses-which focus less on the technologies of distribution and more on the patterns of consumption-yields new clues about both the economics of media and the design principles of its creation.
Fifteen years ago, when I had no choice but to repair to a particular room to watch television, the imperative for anyone in the TV industry was to secure my attention once I got there.

The orginal article.

Summary of “NPR Choice page”

By choosing “I agree” below, you agree that NPR’s sites use cookies, similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device you use to access our sites to enhance your viewing, listening and user experience, personalize content, personalize messages from NPR’s sponsors, provide social media features, and analyze NPR’s traffic.
This information is shared with social media services, sponsorship, analytics and other third-party service providers.

The orginal article.

Summary of “NPR Choice page”

By choosing “I agree” below, you agree that NPR’s sites use cookies, similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device you use to access our sites to enhance your viewing, listening and user experience, personalize content, personalize messages from NPR’s sponsors, provide social media features, and analyze NPR’s traffic.
This information is shared with social media services, sponsorship, analytics and other third-party service providers.

The orginal article.

Summary of “NPR Choice page”

By choosing “I agree” below, you agree that NPR’s sites use cookies, similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device you use to access our sites to enhance your viewing, listening and user experience, personalize content, personalize messages from NPR’s sponsors, provide social media features, and analyze NPR’s traffic.
This information is shared with social media services, sponsorship, analytics and other third-party service providers.

The orginal article.

Summary of “NPR Choice page”

By choosing “I agree” below, you agree that NPR’s sites use cookies, similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device you use to access our sites to enhance your viewing, listening and user experience, personalize content, personalize messages from NPR’s sponsors, provide social media features, and analyze NPR’s traffic.
This information is shared with social media services, sponsorship, analytics and other third-party service providers.

The orginal article.

Summary of “NPR Choice page”

By choosing “I agree” below, you agree that NPR’s sites use cookies, similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device you use to access our sites to enhance your viewing, listening and user experience, personalize content, personalize messages from NPR’s sponsors, provide social media features, and analyze NPR’s traffic.
This information is shared with social media services, sponsorship, analytics and other third-party service providers.

The orginal article.

Summary of “How everything on the internet became clickbait”

Basically every news site covered the story – this Google News page that I archived is particularly horrifying – each putting their own tiny spin on it to keep it on-brand.
There truly is nothing new under the sun – not fake news; not Fox News repeating Donald Trump’s talking points back to him; not even Buzzfeed quizzes.
What has changed is people’s attitudes towards the news media: in 1973, the General Social Survey found that 14% of Americans had “Hardly any” confidence in the press; by 2016, that number was 50%. In All The News That’s Fit to Sell, Stanford Communications Professor James Hamilton provides a framework for why people consume news: the “Four D’s” of Duty, Diversion, Drama, and Display.
The scale of outlets has always had an important implication for people motivated by display: if you know that millions of other people are also watching Fox News – and in particular, the people you expect to actually encounter and have political conversations with – then you know that the news you hear about will be relevant to those conversations.
As the internet grew as a source of news, the number of separate firms appealing to smaller niches exploded.
The same people who were raised on Woodward and Bernstein were still in power, and they initially tried to replicate traditional newspapers online – just check out the front page of the New York Times website in 1996.
This “Information gap” clickbait headline was premised on attracting a readership primarily motivated by duty and diversion – people who want to be informed and entertained by the news.
New media cuts through the comparative advantage held by legacy media organizations by aiming directly for shares on social media; if you see that your friend posts a news story, you don’t need to look at the publisher to know if your friends have already approved of it.

The orginal article.

Summary of “NPR Choice page”

By choosing “I agree” below, you agree that NPR’s sites use cookies, similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device you use to access our sites to enhance your viewing, listening and user experience, personalize content, personalize messages from NPR’s sponsors, provide social media features, and analyze NPR’s traffic.
This information is shared with social media services, sponsorship, analytics and other third-party service providers.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Twitter Is Set Up to Reap Rewards from Harvesting Our Attention-And Moral Outrage Is a Big Part”

Billy Brady from NYU built on Berger and Milkman’s work by analyzing hundreds of thousands of tweets in an effort to understand the role of moral emotions-the feelings associated with our sense of right and wrong, like pride and outrage-in social networks.
In a recent article in Nature Human Behavior, Crockett argued that the constant triggering of moral outrage-an ancient emotion that motivates the shaming and punishing of others-on social media not only makes money for tech companies, but also alters how we experience and express the emotion.
What’s more, Crockett suggested that social media may uncouple the expression and experience of moral outrage.
“[J]ust as a habitual snacker eats without feeling hungry,” she wrote, “a habitual online shamer might express outrage without actually feeling outraged.” Studies on social media activity could illuminate, she concluded, “How new technologies might transform ancient social emotions from a force for collective good into a tool for collective self-destruction.”
Which raises the question: To what extent do social media companies have a moral obligation to improve the way we communicate with each other? Facebook C.E.O. Mark Zuckerberg is one of many tech executives who were once skeptical of their own power.
“And so if there is data that continues to come in that shows that social media is amplifying , then I think they do have a moral obligation.”
There are no easy solutions to any of these issues, perhaps because moral outrage online is a mixed bag.
At the same time, she continued, digital media may reduce moral outrage’s benefits for society by “Reducing the likelihood that norm-enforcing messages reach their targets” and possibly by imposing “New social costs by increasing polarization.” Until we find solutions, our moral emotions will remain subject to monetized technological forces that nobody fully understands.

The orginal article.

Summary of “After a week of Russian propaganda, I was questioning everything”

Like its sister outlet RT, Sputnik is a Russian government-funded media outlet, widely seen by Russia experts as a vehicle to disseminate disinformation for the Kremlin, and, like its space-dwelling namesake, to make the West look bad. While RT is television, Sputnik lives on the radio, a wire service and website.
Today, Sputnik operates in 34 countries in more than 30 languages, including, as of this past summer, on an FM station in Washington, D.C. When Sputnik launched stateside, the investigations into Russia’s supposed interference in the U.S. election were accelerating, and the media outlet was greeted with critical coverage.
Because its provider is now a foreign agent, Sputnik is now required to disclose that it is funded by the Russian government.
Over the last month, questioning the chemical attack in Douma dominated the news at Sputnik.
While at Sputnik’s offices, I also sat down with Mindia Gavasheli, a Russian national who runs Sputnik’s D.C. newsroom.
When I sat down with Lee Stranahan, the former Breitbart reporter, who calls himself a “Political futurist,” he shrugged off the idea that Sputnik was Russian propaganda by employing some whataboutism of his own.
“When you work for Sputnik, you get called a traitor and a Putin puppet But why does no one bring up the coup we fomented?” he said, referring to Russian allegations that the U.S. fomented a coup in Ukraine.
As one last attempt to better understand Sputnik, I put myself on a weeklong Sputnik media diet.

The orginal article.