
Facebook's journalism panel: O'Brien, Milian, Zaleski, McClure (photo by George Kelly)
At Facebook last Wednesday night, a panel of four journalists — Laura McClure of Mother Jones, Katharine Zaleski of the Washington Post, Chris O’Brien of the San Jose Mercury News, and CNN tech writer Mark Milian — talked about how they use Facebook as a tool for journalism. What they said was smart. I’d probably do most of the same things were I in their shoes.
But I had a question for them, and I didn’t get called on to ask it, so I’m going to ask it here. The question goes like this: Everything that journalists are doing on Facebook today — engaging readers in conversation, soliciting sources, polling users, posting “behind the story” material — is stuff they could just as easily do on their own websites. So why are they doing it on Facebook?
One answer is obvious: That’s where the people are! Vadim Lavrusik, a journalist who recently joined Facebook to work on its outreach to the media world, said as much. And it’s true: there are millions of people on Facebook, and Facebook makes it convenient to communicate with them. What’s the problem?
I’ll get to that. But there are other answers to the question, too. Many publications find that their interactions with their readers on Facebook are more civil and valuable than those that take place on their own websites. That, they typically believe, is because Facebook makes users log in with their real names and identities. Finally, individual journalists increasingly find it valuable to build their social-media networks as a hedge against the collapse of the institutions they work for. (“Who owns the ‘social graph’ you build on company time — you or your employer?” is one of those fascinating questions that most newsrooms have barely begun to grapple with.)
We can accept that all these answers make solid sense and yet still feel a little uneasy with media companies’ rush to shovel energy and attention into Facebook’s vast human scrum. Here’s where my uneasiness comes from: Today Facebook is a private company that is almost certainly going to sell stock to the public before long. It will have quarterly earnings reports to make and pressure to deliver to investors. It is run by almost impossibly young people who have never had to deal with any business condition other than hockey-stick-curve growth. For the moment it appears to be trying hard to operate as a neutral and open public platform; its constant tinkering and rethinking of the design and functionality of its services can be maddening, but so far have tended to be driven by a serve-the-user impulse.
That won’t last forever. There are plenty of people waiting to cash in on Facebook’s success, and more in the wings, and they will expect the company to fulfill its inevitable destiny — and “monetize” the hell out of all the relationship-building we’re doing on its pages.
This is the landscape onto which today’s journalists are blithely dancing. I understand why they’re doing it, but I wish the larger companies and institutions would think a little harder about the future.
The web itself is the original social network. Why would you ask reporters to connect with your readers on Facebook if you aren’t already encouraging them to do the same thing in the comments on your own website? If your comments have become a free-fire zone, why don’t you do something about it? If you’ve hired a “social media manager,” great — but why didn’t you hire people to manage your own comments space?
By moving so much of the conversation away from their own websites and out to Facebook, media companies are basically saying, “We did a lousy job of engaging readers under our own roof, so we’re going to encourage it to happen on someone else’s turf.”
You could argue that what news organizations are doing is just like telling your friends, “I can’t invite you over for drinks because our place is such a mess. Let’s meet at a bar!” Maybe. Then again, it might be like saying, “We let our neighborhood go to hell and didn’t do anything about it. Time to move to the mall!”
Facebook is on a fantastic roll today. It’s positioned to dominate the next decade of online evolution the way Google and Microsoft respectively dominated the previous two. It can’t be ignored and I wouldn’t suggest doing so. But it’s not the public sphere, not in the way the Internet itself is. It’s just a company. I hope every editor, reporter and news executive remembers that as they try to get their conversations hopping and their links shared.

Photo by George Kelly


Salon.com
Comments
This makes me think that the public and their thoughts on what the media corp.'s journalists are actually writing does not really have to mesh so to speak. These journalists are reaching out to those on facebook because they are comfortable their amongst their friends. Perhaps it is the equivalent to saying, "Hey I really do want to know what you think even if the company I work for does not."
R
From day 1, I consistently argued for the interaction of reporters and editors with the oft-argumentative commenters, who enjoyed mud slinging to actual thought process.
Still, I argued we needed to utilize what we had, step out from behind our shielded identities and make friends with the people who visted our site daily and took the time to care enough to say something, even though most of the time, their comments resorted to school yard bullying.
Lack of time, staff and enthusiasm took us to facebook, where we were received in a more civilized manner. "Fans" -- now called "Likes" -- became the barometer of success. Comments were civil, and an added bonus to our growing "Like" base. On cyber-paper, it appeared to be a success.
But what dd we gain? Nothing. There was no need for people to click through to the article; enough info was in the headline and first graph for people to feel informed.
We effectively lost Web page views to facebooks "likes" ... I see the AP doing the same thing.
The main advantage I see for journalists who interface with FB is branding for themselves, and the stories they write. And there's no need to put the story out there. Just themselves, their brand and a tantalizing nugget of info.
Newspapers are making huge mistakes with Twitter as well ... but that's a whole other blog.
Facebook is a valuable tool for journalists; it's just not being utilized the right way.
Hello. My friend
good shopping web
╭═════════════╮
www fashion4diy com
╰═════════════╯
very good web,believe you will love it.
FREE SHIPPING,accept paypal
discount including evisu jeans,watches shirts,bags,hat and the decorations and so on
trust me!
Opportunity knocks but once
How are you hope you're well? My name is grace kabashi i saw your profile today and became very interested in you. I want you to send me message in my private email (grace_kabashi@yahoo.com) so we can communicate and know each other better. Remember tribes age color and distance does not matter in a true friendship, but what matters is the love of truth and understanding to each other. I'll tell you more about myself in my next letter also give you my pictures. Be sure to contact me with this private e-mail (grace_kabashi@yahoo.com)wish you the best of the day.
yours lovely
Grace.
How are you hope you're well? My name is grace kabashi i saw your profile today and became very interested in you. I want you to send me message in my private email (grace_kabashi@yahoo.com) so we can communicate and know each other better. Remember tribes age color and distance does not matter in a true friendship, but what matters is the love of truth and understanding to each other. I'll tell you more about myself in my next letter also give you my pictures. Be sure to contact me with this private e-mail (grace_kabashi@yahoo.com)wish you the best of the day.
yours lovely
Grace.