Even Newsjacking to Create So-Called "Satirical Pieces" Has Dos and Don'ts … Based on Common Sense, Propriety and, in Some Instances, Even Law
So that we're clear NOT EVERYTHING GOES REGARDING "NEWSJACKING".
First, what is NEWSJACKING?
Newsjacking is the process of injecting your brand into the day's news, creating a twist that grabs eyes when they're open widest.
Newsjacking pieces that originate on NewsTalkers are therefore posted under the NewsTalkers Brand . Using some other entity's brand when posting from NewsTalkers has the potential to become problematic, primarily for the NewsTalkers website.
Some guidelines:
To be successful, attempts at newsjacking must have a legitimate tie to the story, especially when the story is about a disaster, death, or any other negative .
The Dos and Donts of Newsjacking
Table of Contents
- Harnessing the Noise
- The Dos and Donts of Newsjacking
- Do: Get permission ahead of time.
- Dont: Simply repeat the news.
- Do: Be flexible and harness the ability to publish quickly.
- Dont: Attempt to newsjack tragic stories.
- Do: Stay up-to-date with a variety of news sources.
- Dont: Bad-mouth the competition.
- Do: Build a network of reporters and influencers.
- Dont: Sit on an idea/story.
- Do: Take advantage of industry news and competitors announcements.
- Dont: Publish inaccurate information.
- Do: Be prepared.
- Dont: Get caught up in making the writing perfect.
Tags
Who is online
432 visitors
Look before you leap.
A-mac - what do you call it when a community member 'accidentally on purpose'omits the 'satire' tag, and then right about the time when folks are becoming a little amped up by what is usually some sort of 'hit piece' article, the 'satire' tag is surreptitiously added?Afterward, the innocent(coughcoughbullshitcoughcough)author/seeder of the article, will then harangue his fellow community members for not being able to read or comprehend theEnglishlanguage?If the innocent (ccbscc) author/seeder does this with regularity, could itbe considered anything more than ass-hatted provocation?
Put it here on the front page where everyone can see and/or participate in the conversation. Post the content as "block quotes" and I will address each one based on your stated objections to how I commented overall.
What was the EXACT WORDING OF THE HEADLINE?
After you post it herein, if you request, I'll post an article regarding Newsjack's discussion about the use of headlines.
If there are no objections, if you still have the article, repost it here as a comment rather than a stand-alone article.
If you can show I lied, I'll acknowledge it and apologize I'll even offer to suspend myself for doing so.
Then we can discuss the association of a trademark/logo/banner in conjunction with the content placed under it.
Fair enough? Let's get it all out on the table; if you have been wronged by me, you have every right to prove it for all to see. Going to HD will necessarily keep members from seeing your assertions and my responses.
Let's air it out in the open. Once that's been done, any members can jump in if they so choose. And they will have seen both your position and mine -- unlike if we went via HD.
NOTE: I will be in the woods for the next three days where my internet connection is sporadic. Any delay in response(s) from me will be only temporary eventually I will respond to anything you ask or assert.
As I stated, "If you can show I lied, I'll acknowledge it and apologize I'll even offer to suspend myself for doing so."
Nothing prejudicial about using the word "lies" instead of "inaccuracies" eh, FIP?
Why not post the headline for starters shouldn't take more than a few seconds.
FIP, aren't you the one taking exception to defamatory comments?
Instead of the sidebar comments, let's get to substance of your dispute with me; may I see the headline of the article you posted under the logo of CSM?
I deleted my first comment because I felt it was not sufficiently accurate - I happen to be a perfectionist and would never intentionally mislead anyone.
As for your comment about my practising law, it implies that I was not "a good attorney". You might try, but you're not smearing me. I practised law mostly as the senior partner and leader of a substantial law firm in Toronto for 37 years, until the pressures led me to clinical depression for which I was hospitalized for months, and that led to my retirement. Not only was I "a good attorney" I was referred to as a "prominent" one in Canada's largest city, Canada's centre of commerce. It is not often that a lawyer is appointed "One of Her Majesty's Counsel Learned in the Law" which permitted me to put the letters "Q.C." (Queen's Counsel) after my name. I have deleted my name on the certificate below because for a number of reasons I remain anonymous.
Instead of calling me a liar
Post the headline; you obviously have the time.
Why not let me and any interested parties know exactly what you're talking about?
What exactly are you talking about?
Not at all what I said here it is for at least the third time
POST THE HEADLINE!
Ah, and I thought I had missed it because I don't normally read the tags on an article. So in other words the fact that it was added to the tag line was so nobody would notice that at first it was omitted entirely in order to perfect a fraud, but then placing it in the unlikliest place where it would be seen was in the hope that nobody would notice the original omission. Very clever.
I would think it is essential to make it very clear that any such article was intended as a newsjack . Letting readers decipher that for themselves is subject to too many vagaries . OTOH the same type of problem occurs with misleading or inaccurate info from biased sources being taken as "serious" news .
You returned with a "PROJECT" did you not? Your new screen name indicates/implies the objective of the project to establish or assert your innocence
This discussion did not mention you either in the headline or in my initial comment YOU FOLLOWED THAT COMMENT WITH
Are you no longer glad I brought it up?
Throughout these discussions, among other things, I stated that I like you despite our history of differences. As I posted specific information regarding copyright infringement and potential actions their holders could pursue, I rarely referred to you, rather to the event that could cause Perrie/NT some serious problems.
Where consequences may loom, the failure to discuss the particulars not only doesn't make them go away, but such a failure invites the chance of more.
I'd love to see you just enjoy the site; it's within your power to let this pass and I will act as if it never occurred. But, if you persist in making me out to be a liar WITHOUT SATISFYING THE BURDEN OF PROOF -- without posting the headline, the text to which you have alluded -- anything specific -- you do not get to where you say you'd like to be.
I stand by my liking for you I'm glad for your return. But if you persist in calling me a liar, I will continue to insist you put it on the table and make your case.
If you don't, the "court of public opinion" will decide your status.
And should that happen, I will say to those "jurors," "to err is human, welcome BF back and let's just put this behind us."
Up to you.
The acronym TMI only has 61 different meanings. Maybe instead of your usual game-playing you might say which one you mean.
As well you appear to have deleted your comment:
...which A.Mac has repeated so you can't hide that you said it. You got caught. Be a MAN and apologize instead of running and hiding.
And the CSM logo/trademark/banner YOU DID THAT ON YOUR OWN AND NOT IN CONJUNCTION WITH NEWSJACK?
You used a situation from NewsTalkers and posted it as if The CSM had picked it up and published it?
Please repost the headline and content of the prank. Satire is poking fun by definition editorializing the content of Perrie's article and posting a headline asserting a situation that is not what that headline makes it out to be depending on the specifics, it may or may not be satire.
Going forward, if you don't post the specifics, I'm finished with this. It's bad for NT and members will draw their own conclusions.
I want you to enjoy being back and, unless you post the specifics or return to this part of the discussion, I will not pursue it further.
Peace.
IMPASSE.
Glad for your return.
A. Mac
I never saw the NewsJack banner-- maybe because I have some hunga gunga adblock installed on my computer. I mean, it didn't come up. I didn't realize that it was satire until much later, and then went back to see if there was a satire tag. By that time, there was.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that other people may not have seen the NewsJack banner, either.
You know if BF's article and even CH4Ps original article for that matter had just been left to stand and fall on their own merits, all of this could have been avoided. A couple hours of debate and the articles disappear into the Internets. Instead, we have a site wide freak out.
Look at what this site has turned into the last 10 days or so. The site design works to get things off the front page, let it do its job.
When you click on the link provided in the original article, you are directed to what looks identical tothe CNN website. Then,20 to 30 seconds later, a Newsjack banner saying, "YOU'VE BEEN NEWSJACKED!!" drops down from the top of the page and remains where the CNN header had been. In other words, one has to refrain from scrolling down to read the article for at least20 seconds to learn whether or not they've been 'newsjacked'. Why should someone stare at the header for that long? Most people scroll down to the article immediately. That's why I missed it the first time. I scrolled down to the article right away. But the second time I clicked on the link which directed me to the CNN page, I spent more time at the top of the page looking for any clue that shenanigans were afoot. That's when the NewsJack banner dropped down (rather theatrically) and gave me aThree-stoogespoke in the eye.
I never did see it, and I clicked on it several times... But what you're describing, may be why. Did it disappear after awhile?
Feronia, I answered again on my article, and started a new link. I also apologized if I seemed short with you-- I was out of time, and I apologize.
BFs refusal to respond to my inquiry about his equivocal FIT post attached to my defending myself from his implication that I was not a good lawyer and refusal to apologize for that insulting remark is a cowardly thing to have done, as he appears to have just run and hidden rather than to have faced the music.
I attribute the meaning of this quotation to BF, as it seems relevant to the situation:
I agree with you on this.
I think that's what Bill O'Reilly said about the loofa scandal...
what do you call it when a community member 'accidentally on purpose'omits the 'satire' tag, and then right about the time when folks are becoming a little amped up by what is usually some sort of 'hit piece' article, the 'satire' tag is surreptitiously added?
I agree, which is why the word satire has to be in the title, because it's to easy for a poster to add words in any tagline they want to try to save their ass. I am NOT saying that is what happened in this case, but I am saying it perfectly illustrates why the satire in the tile should be the norm. As far as I'm concerned, since they are so easy to change, tags are meaningless.
I agree. An apology here is in order.
I guess when you unfairly insult (and in fact slander) a person, you see no reason to apologize for it. As well I guess you have no intention to explain what you mean by the acronym you posted. So be it. You certainly know now not only what I think of you but what many others will see you for.
The Fish is BACK! Congratulation!
Please don't be a gold star mama with a cause.
Oops, sorry for that, I see It's already too late.
There will be if you are planning on more "pranks" like the last one.
Every "prank" has its own particulars and the so-called "acceptance" of one does not necessarily mean that it sets an acceptance precedent for all.
This article made no reference to you, BF; it was, before you (immediately) made it about you, an article listing the parameters and dos and don'ts of an internet phenomenon so that there is less chance of its implementation on NT being problematic in the future.
I offered you at least two ways in which to "move on" and you rejected both -- three ways if you count my offer to suspend myself if you could show that I lied.
I will take you at your word that this is the last time, etc. . Since I am just getting to this part of the thread, once I have read the rest of the dialogue, I will request that everyone cease and desist addressing this issue.
It will be up to Perrie going forward to address the issue or not.
That doesn't seem consistent with the purpose of a discussion forum, Sean. The merits are relative to how articles are perceived by readers. If no one comments in a discussion, there is no discussion deadly to a website that lives or dies on member-interaction.
Thanks, Feronia! My internet speed varies, depending on who is on it... We have 3 computers going at one time, and things get slow. When I'm on mine alone, things get faster-- and I don't remember exactly who was on what at that time.
It remained while I sat there and stared at it for a while, somewhat befuddled. But after I scrolled down to the article, I never scrolled back up to see if it was still there.
Me, too!
Thanks!