Intro

If you’ve been wondering what it’s like to consume news round-the-clock during this interesting time in American history, well, I am here to tell you it is exactly as stressful as it seems.

While it certainly was not the healthiest choice I’ve made for my sanity, or now lack thereof, in December 2016 I elected to subscribe to iPhone push notifications from 12 news outlets, all of which send snippets of information that generally cause tremendous pain.

A haphazard conversation with a friend was, for the most part, what prompted this absurd idea to torture myself. My friend had nonchalantly mentioned he solely relies on The New York Times updates for important news. To this I recalled the frenzy I entered by cause of the fragmented news alerts sent on the day of the most glaring media failure of 2016 — the “reopening” of the Hillary Clinton email probe that wasn’t. Had I only read those abstruse, speculative updates, or only updates from one outlet, I would have been woefully uninformed and unfortunately assume many were on that day.

This instance was not exclusive; it was rather a very potent example of the larger problems in the media. The influx of fake news, false equivalency, and media skepticism in 2016 displayed the scope of the challenges we face, but little has been done to ensure we progress in a well-informed, shared reality. Quickly following the election, it became clear most in the media would not introspect and would instead mercilessly defend their coverage. All the while, politicians have continued to confound feeling with fact on far-reaching platforms and the President of the United States has incessantly attacked the freedom of the press, whose role has arguably never been more important.

Thus, I took the plunge and subscribed to push notifications from eight additional outlets to the four I had already been using. In an effort to stress both the importance of consumers seeking more information than just a headline and the media using caution when sending out these updates, I have tracked every notification sent by these 12 outlets. I have assessed the timing, language, context provided, accuracy, and biased/unbiased manner in which they share information with their subscribers.

Below I will:

• Provide background info why this is even worth considering, both for consumers and media
• Specify the outlets assessed and why they were selected
• Perform case studies of the outlets’ responses to seven selected events
• Offer my view on each outlet’s performance
• Give my suggestion on how media can improve push notifications

Why We Should Care About Push Notifications

In an age of digital dominance, emerging wearables, and not-so-subtle attacks from POTUS, it is clear that while ethical standards in journalism persist, the news landscape and media responsibilities are rapidly changing. These responsibilities stretch across every delivery system — print, broadcast, social media, mobile apps, and push notifications. In comparison, push notifications may seem minute, but I’d argue the opposite and here’s why:

To state the obvious, our methods of gathering information have had a notable switch to the digital world. Newspapers’ web traffic outpaces their print circulation by a substantial margin — anywhere from two to 78 times more than average Sunday circulation, according to State of the News Media 2016.

Of greater significance, we have developed a generous reliance on mobile, with mobile traffic for news outlets outpacing desktop traffic by a margin of at least 10%. As of July 2016, seven-in-ten Americans (72%) get their news on their mobile devices, a significant jump from 54% in 2013, according to the Pew Research Center. And, more than half (55%) of these smartphone users receive push notifications from news outlets on their screens.

Now, here’s the number that should really concern us:

Fifty-two percent of those who get news alerts do not click through to the full story or search for more information.

Via Pew Research Center

That equates to roughly 66.5 million Americans, based on U.S. population at the time of the Pew Research Center survey, who receive push notifications, but do not click through or search for any more information. To put that number in perspective, 66.5 million people is more than the population of: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington D.C., Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming combined.

That statistic is simply alarming.

News bites can suffice at times, but updates and headlines are predominantly messages that lack context, are sensationalized, or are deliberately misleading. Ideally, to address these concerns, we would all seek out information from various credible sources and would have a comprehensive nationwide conversation about media literacy. However, as found in Nic Newman’s News Alerts and the Battle for the Lockscreen, many users already regard push notifications as ample information that delivers a considerable value.

Given this sentiment, media have an ethical responsibility to recognize the influence these updates have and to deliver them in a contextualized and unbiased manner. And, if acting out of concern for the public good is not persuasive enough, push updates are accompanied by significant business implications that media companies must consider.

Publishers see the combination of news apps and push notifications as a key channel for rebuilding direct relationships with users on mobile devices, as noted in News Alerts and the Battle for the Lockscreen. These notifications are increasing the regularity with which people return to their favorite news brand in the face of rising competition from social networks and other aggregators.

This is a good sign for the media. Consumers are considerably fond of receiving news through updates, which in turn can help media either weed out or become the competition if they utilize them appropriately.

Across markets, there is a strong sense that the language used in notifications needs to be factual, sober, and serious, providing a clear and accurate summary that reflects the nature of important ‘breaking’ news items that lies behind them. Clickbait or sensationalist headlines are widely viewed dismissively.

If outlets do not send updates that meet and maintain these criteria, they are less likely to earn and retain loyal users.

But, again, delivering on the responsibilities held by the Fourth Estate is frankly the right thing to do.

The Outlets

An informed democracy relies on an independent, investigative press and the checks they make on the government. As emphasized by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), the operations of our mainstream media are critically flawed. Media are increasingly cozy with the powers they should be watchdogging, mergers in the news industry have limited the spectrum of viewpoints that have access to mass media, and outlets are overwhelmingly owned by for-profit conglomerates.

We need to, of our own volition, evaluate the news we are reading to detect bias. These guiding questions from FAIR are an excellent starting point on how to do that:

• Who are the sources?
• Is there a lack of diversity?
• From whose point of view is the news reported?
• Are there double standards?
• Do stereotypes skew coverage?
• What are the unchallenged assumptions?
• Is the language loaded?
• Is there a lack of context?
• Do the headlines and stories match?
• Are stories on important issues featured prominently?

Accordingly, every outlet can be scrutinized for having various levels and types of biases. In selecting which outlets to track, there was no way to avoid these biases or to make a baseline to only assess outlets whose biases were at comparable levels. Had data been publicly available on news outlets’ app downloads and push notification subscriptions, I would have used that as my guide on which outlets to track, but it unfortunately was not.

Instead, I used the following criteria to determine the outlets I would track:

• Outlets with a U.S. base considered “mainstream” based on reputation, lifetime, readership, and viewership
• Have an iPhone app with an option to subscribe to push notifications
• Cover national news and U.S. politics

With that criteria, I landed on the below twelve outlets:

These twelve allowed for a range of mainstream media types — members of the ‘big four’ news agencies (AP, Reuters); top cable news channels that also happen to be top news alert providers (FOX, CNN); other cable news (NBC); top traditionally print newspapers (NYT, WaPo, USA Today, WSJ); non-profit membership media organization (NPR); disruptor media (BuzzFeed); and trade specific (CNBC) — to be assessed.

Analysis

Any and all notifications can, and should, be evaluated for accuracy and reliability. To perform my analysis, I opted to review specific nationwide events that have occurred over the past three months instead of individual notifications to allow for constants when comparing the outlets’ responses.

Below I will identify the seven events, present the updates sent regarding those respective events, share where you can learn more information, and provide my personal assessment of said updates’ language, context provided, accuracy, and biased/unbiased nature.

However, I will leave the bulk of the assessment to you and allow you to draw your own inferences based on what the twelve outlets did or did not publish. As you read the push notifications, ask yourself:

• What would I think if this one update was the only source of information I had on the topic?
• Did all outlets send an update for this event? If not, why did some outlets perceive the event as important and some did not? Was it irresponsible to not inform their readers of this event?
• Is the language loaded or sensationalized?
• Is the language accurate and responsible?
• Is there a lack of context?