First lesson - our UK data suggests most people are informed, cautious, and willing to take further measures, in part thanks to journalism 2/5
Second lesson - in the UK, information inequality has grown throughout the crisis, around e.g. age, gender, class, as initial surge in news use dissipated. We don't have data on ethnicity but would expect similar pattern. 3/5
Third lesson - a growing minority in the UK are “infodemically vulnerable”, because they don’t follow news and don’t trust news 4/5
So overall, a mixed picture - we document news demonstrably help people navigate #covid19 crisis, and plays other important roles, but surge in use has dissipated, trust is declining, and much of the public is critical of how news media handle crisis. So choppy waters ahead. 5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Our @risj_oxford research suggests pandemic is accelerating move to more digital, mobile, and platform-dominated environment where news capture only a small share of attention+advertising 1/5
Meanwhile, many have flocked to already big platforms during the crisis, making it even more important to look at competition issues - but publishers should remember the purpose of competition policy is to protect competition, not specific competitors reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/w… 2/5
And new policies will not in themselves change reality that news is small part of media use. comScore data suggests all news combined accounts for about 3% of time spent in France, and 5 biggest publishers account about half that – leaving 500+ with just a tiny sliver each. 3/5
Here are three values I think most journalists would like to base their work on
1) Seek truth and report it 2) Work with moral clarity 3) Serve the whole public
I wonder whether journalism faces inescapable trilemma that may require tradeoffs between different aspirations?
1/9
Recognizing there are irreducibly plural values does not entail relativism, simply recognizing sometimes we have to make choices btw things that are valuable in different and sometimes incommensurable ways and can't always have everything. (Recognize this from your own life?) 2/9
It's attractive-even seductive-to imagine that different good things we might want can all be accomplished at the same time. But can they?
Looking at the US right now, find it hard to imagine how journalism can cover Trump with moral clarity while also reaching whole public.
3/9
“This is an extremely flammable situation and the president just threw a match into it,” said Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace [&] Ben Shapiro tweeted that it was “deeply irresponsible” for Trump to claim victory", as ABC, CBS, NBC anchors all refute claim apnews.com/article/news-o…
Meanwhile in the UK... No context or qualification in Telegraph headline, just a straight quote from Trump.
However, in e.g. UK, our work suggests initial surge in news use quickly faded, news avoidance grew throughout the crisis, and more than a third think news coverage has made the coronavirus crisis worse. Only 7% think journalism has made things better reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/most-uk-say-ne… 3/8
Warmly recommend @MarietjeSchaake calling for democracies to work together for rules-based international order on tech governance. Also note examples: UN, WTO, NATO - indication of what best-case long-term prospects are in terms of scope, legitimacy, pace? technologyreview.com/2020/09/29/100…
I'm glad she mentions these, because it is easy to call in abstract for "democracies to get together globally to do something about something"
When looking at actual examples of democracies, or democracies and others, getting together globally to do something, it is much messier
Also note: conspicious absence of large-scale "positive policy" - changes/additions to existing rules+regulations is sometimes oversight (policymakers not across issue, not gotten to it) or gridlock, other times what academics call "negative policy": deliberate non-intervention.