Chronotope’s Twitter Archive—№ 64,062

…in reply to @Chronotope
The real problem is that if you don't know how the media business works, you might be ethically compromised and not even realize it.
On twitter.com ♻️ 4 Retweets ❤️ 9 Favorites 2016 Jun 20 Mood -2 🙁

…in reply to @Chronotope
Do you think readers who get clickjacked to malware sites think you operate ethically? Do they really care about the paper wall around you?
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 3 Favorites 2016 Jun 20 Mood +2 🙂

…in reply to @Chronotope
No. They don't. If you're site runs unethical advertising, *you*--the journalist--are being perceived as unethical. Readers will think that.
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 3 Favorites 2016 Jun 20 Mood -5 🙁

…in reply to @Chronotope
The real problem is that journalists think readers understand even the minimal amount they understand about the business.
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 3 Favorites 2016 Jun 20 Mood -2 🙁

…in reply to @Chronotope
You can't have it *both ways*. Journalists complaining about clickbait->readers think you understand the economics of clickbait.
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 1 Favorite 2016 Jun 20 Mood -2 🙁

…in reply to @Chronotope
And you DO! But they don't. So now if you're on a site that does clickbait, you're ethically compromised in the eyes on the standard reader.
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 3 Favorites 2016 Jun 20 Mood 0

…in reply to @Chronotope
There is a reason that term gets misused so much among vocal readership. It's because they don't understand it; not because its an attack.
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 1 Favorite 2016 Jun 20 Mood -3 🙁

…in reply to @Chronotope
Journos, you're in this, you don't get to shrug & say 'well I don't understand the biz, if you get ripped off by bad ads, it isn't about me'
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 1 Favorite 2016 Jun 20 Mood -3 🙁

…in reply to @Chronotope
There are ads that are unethical to run, readers get this, *journalists* get this - poynter.org/2013/the-atlantic-pulls-sponsored-content-from-church-of-scientology/200593/
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 1 Favorite 2016 Jun 20 Mood -2 🙁

…in reply to @Chronotope
If we have responsibility over some unethical ads, we have responsibility over *all* unethical ads, including ones from networks.
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 2 Favorites 2016 Jun 20 Mood -2 🙁

…in reply to @Chronotope
When we allow stuff like this robleathern/743916011355774976 to run next to our content? That's a signal to readership that we're not to be trusted
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 2 Retweets ❤️ 2 Favorites 2016 Jun 20 Mood +5 🙂

…in reply to @Chronotope
You cannot operate ethically as a journalist unless you understand how you're getting paid and what goes into that process. Period.
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 3 Favorites 2016 Jun 20 Mood 0

…in reply to @Chronotope
Any journalist who tells you (many will) ignorance of business side preserves ethics is *wrong*. It only blinds you to unethical behavior.
Permalink On twitter.com 2016 Jun 20 Mood -6 🙁

…in reply to @Chronotope
And as journalists we should know better than anyone that pretending our own organizations' ethical challenges don't exist is unacceptable.
Permalink On twitter.com 2016 Jun 20 Mood +1 🙂

…in reply to @Chronotope
B/c you can pretend that fraudulent & malicious advertising next to your work doesn't compromise your ethics; but readers will know better.
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 1 Favorite 2016 Jun 20 Mood -3 🙁

…in reply to @Chronotope
I'm neither a fan nor enemy of ad blockers, but within this context for readers it's understandable they could see em as a moral imperative.
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 1 Favorite 2016 Jun 20 Mood +1 🙂

…in reply to @Chronotope
Acknowledging the problem won't make it go away tomorrow, but journalists paying attention to the ethics of ads will take us a long way.
Permalink On twitter.com 2016 Jun 20 Mood -2 🙁

Search tweets' text