Chronotope’s Twitter Archive—№ 114,463

Also worth noting that journalists as individuals and as a professional class do a terrible job explaining what their job is and how they do it. The internet creates a new and easy to take advantage of opportunity to increase transparency to solve this, but no bites.
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 10 Retweets ❤️ 72 Favorites 2019 Dec 29 Mood +5 🙂

…in reply to @Chronotope
A brief list of things that would be easy to do technically but that we don't: - list all the editors and copy editors who worked on a story - list who commissioned a story - make details about source's qualifications that are collected in a fact check clear on the story
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 14 Retweets ❤️ 64 Favorites 2019 Dec 29 Mood +2 🙂

…in reply to @Chronotope
- list the number of edits a story received - list the previous stories under this byline on the same topic(s) that qualify the reporter - list previous stories on which a source was used that qualify the source - clarify the revenue impact a story has.
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 22 Favorites 2019 Dec 29 Mood 0

…in reply to @Chronotope
- designate a non comment section contact to raise factual concerns with. - show a publication's focus on a topic by giving a count of the number of stories they've done in that topic. - designate related work off site that influenced our informed the story.
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 2 Retweets ❤️ 19 Favorites 2019 Dec 29 Mood 0

…in reply to @Chronotope
- show the time passed between pitch and publication. And that's just off the top of my head.
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 12 Favorites 2019 Dec 29 Mood +2 🙂

…in reply to @Chronotope
Worth noting that part of the reason these stats aren't made available is because, despite technology making them easy to track many publications don't. Which is even more baffling.
On twitter.com ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 9 Favorites 2019 Dec 29 Mood +3 🙂

Search tweets' text