Some media stories of note for Thursday, May 9, 2013:

Poynter has two stories that examine the qualities of the reporting of the saving of three women from captivity in Cleveland earlier this week. Eric Deggans writes about some of the flaws of the early reporting of Charles Ramsay, whose interview following the rescue of the women made him an Internet sensation.  Was it a case of jumping on a good story without adequate verification? Were there factors that made Ramsay a particularly attractive story?  Then Kelly McBride writes about how to fairly cover the impending rape trial in which the three women have already been identified. "Their names are already central to the story, and that cannot be avoided," McBride writes. But there are several ways for media to minimize harm in the coverage by using clear language and reflexivity to avoid further victimization. 

Mathew Ingram, writing for paidContent, explores the idea of the "open interview," in which the full discussion is made available publicly. He notes that many journalists don't provide a transcript or tape unless there is some challenge about the context of a quote or a question about its accuracy. Technology easily permits it now, Ingram writes. Even though there are drawbacks --- not all journalists know how to get to the point when asking a question, and some will appear less than authoritative in their interrogations --- Ingram concludes it's a valuable approach to build audience trust. 

Ingram also has a look at LinkedIn's evolution as a platform as it ventures more and more into news provision. He notes the changes in LinkedIn Today's stream of business news with a series of content channels that open inside your profile. While Ingram doesn't accept that LinkedIn has become a media empire, he does note that it is finding a way to direct relevant content to a business-oriented audience.

Some media stories of note for Thursday, February 28, 2013:

The discipline of verification isn't always disciplined. Craig Silverman, writing for Poynter, examines a Canadian study on media practices to confirm information and finds them inconsistent and a little improvised.  The study (full disclosure: some authors are or have been colleagues) found that verification can't always be verified.

Last month The Atlantic ran into criticism for carrying sponsored content featuring information on the Church of Scientology. The episode prompted The Atlantic to take down the content, apologize, and create new standards to reflect those of the editorial work of the organization. Jeff John Roberts, writing for paidContent, discusses the lessons learned --- mainly that this sort of content is difficult to carry off with a news brand.

Lately there have been several pieces touting the value of LinkedIn as an emerging, even established player in the publishing space among social media. Evelyn Rusi of The Wall Street Journal takes a larger look at the impact of the professional network --- what it terms the ugly duckling of social media --- in specializing and commanding a high-end market.

A nice, common sense post from Meryl Evans on WebWorkerDaily identifies the rules of thumb for social media. In essence, there really aren't any.

Having said that, Evans approaches social media smartly and has some discipline about even the free forms of it. Among her rules:

1. Do it the same time daily.
2. Spread the Tweets.
3. Join the right Twitter chats.
4. Review Facebook daily.
5. Update Linkedin at least a few times weekly.
6. Write at least two blog entries weekly.
7. Read others' blogs.

Two studies this week chronicle practices in social media. One is an early indication of the challenge of commingling advertising in that conversational space, the other is about the seemingly innocuous traits of that conversation.

Linkshare has determined that only about one in 20 social media users interact with advertising. Banner ads are only clicked through by four per cent of users. That said, fewer than one in five consider advertising intrusive in that space. Still, only five per cent on Linkedin and nine per cent on Facebook felt they were useful.

Then there is a study from Pearanalytics that seems to play into the prevailing criticism of Twitter --- that it's a haven for mindless prattle. The report found little news on Twitter (3.6 per cent, in fact) and a lot of vents and blasts (40.5 per cent). There are plenty of conversations and a fair amount of promotion and spam in the mix.

(My own view is that, when you follow a good group, you get a good reading on Twitter's value. If you simply open up to everything, you don't get value for the experience. Twitter wasn't established as a news distributor, but as a conversational tool --- as a social medium, after all.)