The problems with Facebook

[tyrannical bastard 1,410]

I think it's safe to assume that local television stations (and their parent companies) have destroyed Facebook's effectiveness as a news source, and have made it more of a hindrance than a benefit.

Why you ask?

 

- Instead of posting good stories that are exclusive to the area the station serves (some still do), it's become an endless cycle of clickbait shuffled around from station to station, when a station picks up on one of these stories or something "trendy". To me, there's nothing as annoying as reading the SAME EXACT STORY from several different sources either in succession or hours, and even days apart!

 

- Because of Facebook's algorithms that keep pushing "top stories" instead of being able to access "most recent" content. This destroys the effectiveness of covering breaking news. The result is the original break or later details superceding the final result. So in other words, while the area was under a TORNADO WARNING yesterday, it pops up to the top today, and the post giving the "all clear" is buried WAY down the line.

 

- Then add in all of the useless garbage like anchor selfies, games, baiting polls and questions in order to "engage" the audience, with a paid post here and there because the sales staff wanted to sell some "facebook time" to one of their clients.....Gannett and Sinclair are the worst offenders pushing all of the worthless "USA TODAY" crap, and with the other......you get the idea.

 

I get the intent of a station trying to be a one-stop-shop of information. But the endless pursuit of "likes" and doing this stuff to ramp up the counts is getting old fast, and sooner or later, the fans are going to start bailing (or just un-following to mute all of the worthless crap a station can spew out) Call me old school, but I like to have different voices and like to follow lots of things, but it defeats the purpose to do so when all of the stations are posting the exact same thing. I get it if it's something of actual importance. But if it's about the crazy marriage proposal in Idaho that all of the stations in Alabama are posting....... :bang: :bang: :bang:

 

Thoughts?

[TheRolyPoly 1,461]

I think Twitter is a better way to get the news because its more up-to-date, more faster to receive a news update and sometimes, no fluff, unlike Facebook.

 

Also, another huge difference, NO GARGAGE crap like you mentioned, like selfies, games, polls, questions, etc. Just news stories and the links to it.

 

I say Twitter is a better way to receive news than Facebook.

[NEOMatrix 1,109]

There's only three stations that I seem to follow: WOIO, WFMJ, and WKBN. With what you just said, WOIO (and maybe other Raycom stations) are very big offenders of posting fluff stories instead of news. WKBN occasionally posts national news but mostly keeps it local and WFMJ does it right in posting all local stories.

[d247 41]

Another issue, that this PBS Mediashift article addresses, is how stations simply post video teasers to stories on Facebook instead of original relevent content.

 

When all TV stations do is post video teases to Facebook, they’re thinking short-sighted and missing gigantic opportunities to provide relevant content where their consumers already exist. Instead of teasing the story, post a Facebook-specific video version of the story. Post video of some sound that didn’t make the cut. Post a recap from the reporter about what surprised him or her about the story. Do anything other than a standard 15-second video tease pushing to the legacy medium.

 

[tyrannical bastard 1,410]

The issue remains with the content itself. It's so bad that only "teasing" it does a better favor than posting the whole story.

 

Take for example.....on WEAR's facebook page, they post a story about the world's largest McDonald's getting a facelift. The story links to the article. Completely missing from the article is where exactly this world's largest McDonald's is. The only clue I get is that the owner is in Central Florida. Is this article implying that I know that? Well, they're dead wrong on that behalf.

(Update....after a Google search, it's located in Orlando off of International Drive after reading an Orlando Sentinel article)

The only thing that may tie this in any way to Pensacola is that it happens to likely be in Florida. Anyone who has ever been to Florida knows that the Florida Panhandle may as well be another state from Florida itself.

 

And going back to the issue of content is that this is some fluff story that's only posted to possibly meet a posting quota. Quantity WAY over quality.

 

I wish stations would stop re-posting other people's "trending" articles unless they actually apply to something important or relevant that is happening locally. Will it matter to the readers and/or viewers in the area and does it have any implications for them?

 

Now if something "trendy" actually happens under their nose, then that's an opportunity to leverage. But it's happening elsewhere and the station is desperate to fill content, so they rip and read from elsewhere.

 

And of course....why would I be following WEAR?

 

....to get ideas on when they will switch over to the new Sinclair graphics....since they're still status quo.

 

Now if I was an average Pensacola viewer who wanted to be informed about what was happening in Pensacola, I would be short changed too.

[TheRob 458]

I remember the meeting about posting social media stories after Facebook had changed an algorithm. Plain local stories wouldn't cut it. Everything had to have a "wow" factor with high potential for clicks and shares.

 

I get the teases. We still live in a television ratings world, and we're still trying to drive people back to the television set.

 

I follow all the Tribune stations on Twitter. I find it amusing because all the web departments post the same click-bait at the same time, so the story appears 20 times on my feed in ten minutes.

[rkolsen 1,557]

I remember the meeting about posting social media stories after Facebook had changed an algorithm. Plain local stories wouldn't cut it. Everything had to have a "wow" factor with high potential for clicks and shares.

 

I get the teases. We still live in a television ratings world, and we're still trying to drive people back to the television set.

 

I follow all the Tribune stations on Twitter. I find it amusing because all the web departments post the same click-bait at the same time, so the story appears 20 times on my feed in ten minutes.

It's the same thing with Hearst and NBC. The publishing system allows one operator to post a story to all stations at a click of a button that then sends out tweets.

[AJClementeFan69 409]

Wanted to add to this thread because I've noticed the Tribune stations are probably some of the worst offenders with regard to clickbait...at least on their FB pages.

 

I've noticed it takes up somewhat less real estate on the actual websites than it used to. But go to any given Trib station's FB page and I think it would be generous to say 50% of it is local content.

 

These (inter)national "talker" stories are probably a necessary evil when it comes generating hits (i.e. revenue) but I think the Trib stations have taken it to a spammy level. I think people ultimately want to get local content from local stations...it's what's going to keep people coming back to their websites vs BuzzFeed or Yahoo et al.