Can long-form journalism bring readers back by learning from the literary essay? 

In this abbreviated post, you can view how consumer technology has slowly eroded the audience for long-form or slow journalism. Below you’ll find a link to the Online Journalism Blog where we share 17 rhetorical concepts that can mitigate the smartphone effect.

In 2016 a Pew report looked at how readers interacted with over 74,000 articles on their mobile phones. It concluded that long-form reporting was holding its own despite the shift to mobile, boasting a higher engagement rate (123 seconds compared with 57.1 for short-form stories) and the same number of visits:

“While 123 seconds – or just over two minutes – may not seem long, and afar cry from the idealized vision of citizens settling in with the morning newspaper, two minutes is far longer than most local television news stories today.”

Long-form articles get twice the engaged time and about the same number of visitors on mobile

Tweaking the concept of long-form

But buried in the report were some problems: only 3 percent of long-form and 4 percent of short-form news returned to the content once they left it — and both types of articles had brief lifespans after content was posted, with interaction after three days dropping by 89 percent for short-form and 83 percent for long-form.

Moreover, an “overwhelming majority of both long-form readers (72%) and short-form readers (79%) view just one article on a given site over the course of a month on their cellphone.”

Long-form content appeared to be performing better than short-form content on most measures — but it was a pretty low bar.

If the genre is to survive in the current digital environment the prevailing concept of long-form journalism, it seems, still needs tweaking so that readers read more stories, return to them more frequently in order to finish them, and engage for even longer periods.

To view the 17 rhetorical terms, visit Online Journalism Blog:

Media Ethics: Behind The Carson King Saga


 Interview begins at the 6:50 mark

Carson King, 24, has raised over $1 million for charity and a wave of controversy after going viral with a sign requesting beer money at the Cyclone-Hawkeye game on Sept. 14. Media Ethicist and Iowa State University Professor Michael Bugega joins this ‘News Buzz’ edition of River to River to give his perspective on the investigation of Carson’s past tweets by The Des Moines Register and the following backlash.

Carson King Lesson More about Internet than Ethics

Carson King held up a beer sign during a mega-media sporting event, and his life changed overnight. He rode the media blitz from icon to apology. In the age of the machine, the same thing can happen to anyone at the right time in the wrong viral place.

A 24-year-old man held up a sign asking for beer money at the widely televised ISU-Iowa ESPN Game Day media extravaganza. It was a thunderous day, with multiple delays at Jack Trice stadium. For many tailgaters, beer was a good remedy to wait out the weather.

ESPN was crawling with media trying to create content before, during and after downpours, and King appeared in a short segment.

Then the Internet happened, and money started flowing as freely as tap into King’s online Venmo account.

As the funds grew to about $600, King did the right thing: He said he would give that money to University of Iowa Children’s Hospital.

Seeing endorsement opportunities, as well as compassion in a thoughtful young man, Busch Light and Venmo promised to match whatever funds King raised.

He ended up raising a lot, more than $1 million.

Mediated Brands 

King’s own brand metamorphosed swiftly on Internet. In the course of a few weeks, he became a celebrity–“Iowa Legend”–with his likeness on a beer can.


His story was local as well as national. The Des Moines Register would do a “profile,” a genre that explores the background and character of a newsmaker.

According to the journalism website, Poynter, “The subjects of profiles could be people who are on the brink of change, unusual people, people in the community others may have wondered about but never bothered to notice. …”

That post was written in 2002, and the world changed since then, although many journalists as well as news consumers don’t quite realize how much. Internet is immediate, global, and more powerful than anyone thinks … until they have a Carson King experience.

This is how his story morphed from compassion to apology.

In a routine background check, the Register did what employers, college admissions officers, parents and yes, college students do: It looked at King’s past social media posts.

There were two racist ones posted when he was 16. The reporter asked him about them, and King didn’t immediately remember them. Internet remembered them, and now the world would probably see them.

So King did what many public relations practitioners would have advised: Get in front of the story.

He composed this statement:

Then he appeared on WHOtv.

Only he did it before the Register went to press.

The newspaper had planned to reference the tweets in a few sentences at the end of the profile, which largely would have focused on his positive impact. (Here is the published piece.) Some might say, had King not got in front of the story, those sentences would have been dismissed or not even read in a social media era where users typically are too distracted to read to the end of any story online or in print.

That also is an Internet effect.

Media Ethics

A post by Register Editor Carol Hunter explained what was happening behind the scenes. (We don’t know if the reporter found the offensive tweets and went to an editor for advice, or whether he contacted King directly, setting off a chain reaction.) Debates arose in the newsroom with pros and cons and provocative questions. (Note:  Also, a second Hunter follow-up was posted on 9/26/19 noting policy changes. The reporter in question no longer works at the Register.)

Here is an excerpt from Hunter’s initial explanation:

Should that material be included in the profile at all? The jokes were highly inappropriate and were public posts. Shouldn’t that be acknowledged to all the people who had donated money to King’s cause or were planning to do so?

The counter arguments: The tweets were posted seven years ago, when King was 16. And he was remorseful. Should we chalk up the posts to a youthful mistake and omit the information?

As Hunter acknowledged in her post, reasonable people could disagree with the decision to question King about the tweets and to include them in the story.

That’s a media ethics question in the grey area in which the Register found itself. The backlash was swift and severe, largely focusing on the newspaper as symbol of demonizing media. However, as Hunter knew, there was no clear answer, given the circumstances: only choices and consequences.

Ramifications were immediate. Anheuser-Busch terminated its relationship with King and issued this statement:

Carson King had multiple social media posts that do not align with our values as a brand or as a company and we will have no further association with him. We are honoring our commitment by donating more than $350,000 to the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics.

From a media ethics perspective, we might focus on two standards in the decision to withhold or publish information about King’s tweets:


  • Fairness: The tweets had little to do with the story about charity and compassion.
  • Do No Harm: Mentioning the tweets would cause harm to the primary beneficiary: Children’s Hospital.


  • Transparency: The tweets were public.
  • Public Information: Donors had a right to know.

A media ethicist might have advised the Register to omit past juvenile social media posts in profiles of adults unless those posts were indisputably associated with the topic of a story. A teen tweet about violence in a story about violence, for instance, would fall in that category.  Conversely, the newspaper could have done a positive profile about King without mentioning the tweets and scheduled a follow-up story at a later date, perhaps with a spin on how character develops with education and experience.

But that was preempted, too. Something or someone triggered a series of events, prompting King to get out in front of the story.

Oddity and Odyssey  

The Carson King episode was a journalism anomaly.  Several coincidences occurred that contributed to this story. It rained. It was Game Day. ESPN and its audience were bored. Corporate branders saw opportunities in a photogenic man who matched its target demographics and psychographics. And, of course, his last name happened to be “King,” as in “King of Beers,” the Budweiser logo.

And then something happened that showed everyone just how powerful social media can be when we fail to practice discretion. People began scouring the reporter’s past tweets and found offensive ones there, too.

Now the story was national. The Washington Post picked it up in a article titled “Iowa reporter who found a viral star’s racist tweets slammed when critics find his own offensive posts.

The Post published this Twitter screenshot.

But that’s not the story either.

Concerning Carson King, many corporate influencers have said, done or disseminated outrageous, hideous, hurtful, stereotypical, profane or slanderous tweets and posts. But there is a key difference between them and King. They deleted them.

King never thought he would be a national celebrity. So he didn’t delete.

In his statement, he writes:

It was just 10 days ago that I was a guy in the crowd holding a sign looking for beer money on ESPN Game Day. Since then – so much has happened. Especially when I announced all of the money would be donated to the Stead Family Children’s Hospital in Iowa City. Thousands of people have donated and today the account is at 1.14 million dollars. Much of this has happened thanks to social media – it has the power to bring people together for a common good.

It also can make your life very public.

Celebrity icon Andy Warhol prophesied in 1968 that everyone in the future “will be world-famous for 15 minutes.” In the Internet age that phrase might be “world-famous and then infamous in 15 minutes.”

King’s fame happened because of omnipresent Internet responsible for more than a million dollars in charitable giving as well as to his rapid fall from corporate grace.

Convention and Intervention

Despite the complexities and anomalies of the Carson King saga, the audience recognized the familiar journalism pattern: Elevate someone to celebrity status overnight, then cut the person down and find a scapegoat. Tag the Register for that.

An online petition appeared on, demanding the Register issue a front-page apology to Carson King. Its goal is 200,000 digital signatures, and at this writing, some 157,761 had done just that. (In fact, in the short span of composing this paragraph, more than a dozen more signatures appeared.)

Gov. Kim Reynolds has proclaimed Saturday, Sept. 28, “Carson King Day in Iowa.” You can read the proclamation here.

The celebration is apt in many ways, with one caveat. King’s juvenile offensive tweets must have been especially hurtful for any peer or person of color reading them. To be sure, teens say all manner of offensive things, and many later realize the errors of their derogatory ways. Often, teachers or role models will have intervened to explain the history and hurt of racism, treating infractions as teachable moments about the importance of inclusion.

King said as much in his statement:

Thankfully, high school kids grow up and hopefully become responsible and caring adults. I think my feelings are better summed up by a post from just 3 years ago:

“Until we as a people learn that racism and hate are learned behaviors, we won’t get rid of it. Tolerance towards others is the first step.” — July 8, 2016

Education is the instructor in cases like this, and that also applies to Internet.

Interpersonal Divide continues to advocate for media and technology literacy, as early as middle school and continuing through college. We all have to confront the new digital realities shaping social norms because of the speed and viral propensity of the web.

That lesson applies to journalism. Withhold today what you cannot decide for tomorrow. Re-evaluate ethical standards established in the age of print and decide if they still apply in the age of the machine.

Courage of Greta Thunberg: Social Media Propels Message

Swedish teen activist Greta Thunberg displays moral courage addressing climate change at the United Nations. She used social media to spread her views. Trolls used it against her, targeting her Asperger’s diagnosis. Yet she persists with a powerful, provocative message.

Some say her Asperger’s diagnosis allows her to speak boldly. Some say it’s just plain courage, with a message delivered at the right time and place through the proper platform. In any case, Greta Thunberg’s use of social media has become the digital megaphone that inspires thousands. Thunberg uses Internet in the manner that many of us envisioned around the time of her birth: bringing to the world a global message of proactive change.

In 2004, the Pew Research Center surveyed experts in The Future of the Internet I about how the worldwide access would be used in the current day. Some of the predictions were spot on, including major cyber attacks on the grid, Internet integrated seamlessly into physical environs, and increased levels of government surveillance.

Here’s one of the fails. The majority of experts believed that more information would lead to higher levels of social awareness rather than political bias.

Just 32% of these experts agreed that people would use the internet to support their political biases and filter out information that disagrees with their views. Half the respondents disagreed with or disputed that prediction.

Thunberg’s rise as an environmental icon has to do with interpersonal as well as digital protests. Her personal narrative began in 2018 when she left school to protest outside the Swedish parliament, demanding that politicians act to sustain the environment. She was photographed, blogged and tweeted about on social media, inspiring students in her own country and Europe to participate in similar protests.

Now she has taken her message to the United States, a country that has withdrawn from participation in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation.

Thunberg’s courage also includes ignoring repeated attacks on her person. CNN reported that President Trump mocked her after her UN speech, tweeting: “”She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!”

Internet trolls target her Asperger’s condition in coordinated political and personal attempts to undermine her message.

While typical teens might have yielded to such attacks, Thunberg responded with indifference and insight:

“When haters go after your looks and differences, it means they have nowhere left to go. And then you know you’re winning!  I have Asperger’s and that means I’m sometimes a bit different from the norm. And – given the right circumstances -being different is a superpower.”

Interpersonal Divide often discusses the biases and banalities of social media. However, the book also documents teens who have used social media as Thunberg does, to engage and teach. Here’s an excerpt:

In 2016, the 12-year-old singer-songwriter Grace Vanderwaal learned how to play the ukulele by watching YouTube videos and went on to win a million dollars on the competitive talent show “America’s Got Talent.” Online content also has advanced careers of budding scientists. In 2015, 17-year-old Olivia Hallisey helped solve a refrigeration issue in Africa associated with portable diagnostic tests for Ebola by reading online about a silk fiber derivative that keeps proteins stable without requiring cooling temperatures.

Whether arts or sciences, Internet can inspire innovation and trigger social change. It also has the power to create overnight global icons with powerful messages, as in the case of Thunberg.

As Interpersonal Divide also notes, however, “there is one critical component that can cultivate astute use of online resources, and that is parental, peer and teacher guidance on how to access information from reliable sources and avoid dangers from untrustworthy ones.”

Thunberg’s message is empowered by reliable sources on climate change, informing everyone about the need to take action to repair and sustain the environment.


Engagement v. Hate Speech: YouTube Tries to Do Both

Google is trying to monitor and delete hate speech from its popular YouTube channel with new rules and warnings; however, the company’s bottom line–literally–is the number of clicks that feed its revenue stream.

An insightful post by Mathew Ingram, Columbia Journalism Review, dissects twin opposing goals of Google in deleting hate speech via algorithm and human moderators while maintaining audience engagement. That engagement includes opinions many might find offensive.

Ingram cites interviews with former YouTube staffers that suggest Google cares as much about how long users spend on the site, regardless of content, as the offensive nature of that content.

In its latest effort against hate speech, Google reports that it took down more than 100,000 videos and 17,000 channels for violating hate speech rules. Also deleted were more than 500 million comments.

Offensive content is screened via algorithm and human moderators.

Interpersonal Divide has covered these hit-and-miss methods in previous posts, including one last year, titled “Violence, Bias, Hate: What Algorithms Miss and Why You Should Care.”

Nonetheless, the latest crackdown has merit.

According to its official blog, the company has “a longstanding policy against hate speech,” specifically targeting supremacist content. The latest initiative prohibits “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.” The policy bans content that promotes Nazi ideology, or denies documented events, such as the Holocaust or the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary.

The company’s community rules also bans:

  • Nudity or sexual content. “Also, be advised that we work closely with law enforcement and we report child exploitation.”
  • Harmful or dangerous content. “Videos showing such harmful or dangerous acts may get age-restricted or removed depending on their severity.”
  • Hateful content. “[W]e don’t support content that promotes or condones violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity.”
  • Violent or graphic content. “It’s not okay to post violent or gory content that’s primarily intended to be shocking, sensational, or gratuitous.”
  • Harassment and cyberbullying. “If harassment crosses the line into a malicious attack it can be reported and may be removed.”
  • Spam, misleading metadata, and scams. “Don’t create misleading descriptions, tags, titles, or thumbnails in order to increase views.”
  • Threats. “Things like predatory behavior, stalking, threats, harassment, intimidation, invading privacy, revealing other people’s personal information, and inciting others to commit violent acts or to violate the Terms of Use are taken very seriously.”
  • Copyright. Respect copyright. Only upload videos that you made or that you’re authorized to use. This means don’t upload videos you didn’t make.”
  • Privacy. “If someone has posted your personal information or uploaded a video of you without your consent, you can request removal of content based on our Privacy Guidelines.”
  • Impersonation. “Accounts that are established to impersonate another channel or individual may be removed under our impersonation policy.”
  • Child Safety. “Also, be advised that we work closely with law enforcement and we report child endangerment.”

Interpersonal Divide discusses these and related issues involving technology at home, school and work. Here’s an excerpt about hostility as the new normal:

Hostility as social norm.  Surveys show that society is becoming more uncivil, not only at workplaces but also during commutes to them, because of road rage and distracted driving. All of that has spilled into the home, triggering conflict there. Cyberbullying and subsequent online incivility has led to a hostile work environment with such consequences as absenteeism, turnover, grievances and even lawsuits.

We’ll continue to monitor Google’s efforts to remove hate speech to ascertain whether it is living up to its well-publicized commitments.



Promote digital literacy in Malta’s schools

Malta has the second highest rate of digital engagement in the European Union, with 96 percent of those aged between 16 and 24 active on social media. Online abuse disrupts school activities and causes loss of sleep, changes in appetite and worrisome interpersonal issues.

Copyright 2019 by The Malta Independent

By Michael Bugeja

Earlier this year The Malta Independent ran an insightful article about mental health literacy, warning parents about over-protecting children and hindering their ability to cope with everyday stress. Experts discussed how to distinguish genuine mental disorders from simple life challenges but they did not, however, address a major, stress-inducing teenage activity: social media.

Why is this a concern? Two years ago, The Malta Independent reported that Malta had the second highest rate of digital engagement in the European Union, with 96 per cent of those aged between 16 and 24 active on social media. The latest statistics show that some 66.41 per cent of Maltese are active on Facebook alone, with others spending time on Pinterest, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and other platforms.

Distracted by their own online activities, parents are often oblivious of the abuse that their children experience on social media.

I have been researching these harmful effects for almost two decades in my work as a distinguished professor at Iowa State University of Science and Technology. I have writtentwo books on the subject: Interpersonal Divide: The Search for Community in a Technological Age (2005) and Interpersonal Divide in the Age of the Machine (2018), both published by the Oxford University Press.

Last year the Pew Research Centre released a study showing that name-calling and rumour-spreading has increased dramatically among teenagers, with “the proliferation of smartphones and the rise of social media” transforming “where, when and how bullying takes place.”

For the rest of the article, click here or visit:

Essential Conference on Post-Truth in the Age of the Machine

The Commonwealth Centre for Connected Learning is hosting a conference on Post-Truth, Oct. 10-11, in Valletta, Malta. In the video below, Professor Alex Grech, expert technologist, discusses with Interpersonal Divide author Michael Bugeja the state of truth, surprisingly similar in Malta and the U.S. Reason? Social media misuse, partisan media and a world without “why.”

Michael Bugeja, distinguished professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Iowa State University, says journalism and society in Malta and the United States has been divided politically and ethically. “Fact is alternative and truth is not truth.” We seek affirmation rather than information. Many of us would rather be friended but uninformed.

Meanwhile, journalism has aligned itself with those groups and political parties because “margins are too low in the objective middle.” Dr. Bugeja asks this intriguing question:

How can two countries thousands of miles apart with decidedly different cultures suffer from the same moral malady? Technology divides us into partisan groups. Corporate giants–Apple, Microsoft, Google (Alphabet), and Facebook–have programmed how we think and treat each other in the post-truth era.

This conference is essential for educators, communicators, journalists and citizens so that they can understand what divides them, who profits from the division, and what can be done about it.

Alex Grech, a change consultant, educator and speaker, is known for this work on Digital Identity, Digital Credentials, Blockchain, EdTech and Media Literacy. He holds a doctorate in Internet Computing from the University of Hull. He teaches these courses at the University of Malta:

  • DGA3008 – Digital Literacy and Social Networking for Creatives
  • MCS1000 – Aspects of Communications
  • MCS1050 – Internet Communications
  • MCS3953 – Social Media and 21st Century Communications
  • MCS5460 – New Media and Society

Michael Bugeja teaches media ethics and technology and social change at Iowa State University of Science and Technology. He is a dual citizen of Malta and the United States.

In the above video, Dr. Grech asks Dr. Bugeja candid questions about the state of truth in the age of the machine. Both professors advocate for understanding technology from a computer science perspective rather than consumer perspective.

Dr. Bugeja expounds upon that idea. “The biggest lie in Malta and the United States,” he says, is clicking “I agree” as if you have  read the terms of service when you download an application on your smartphone or computer.

Dr. Bugeja also discusses his research in Interpersonal Divide in the Age of the Machine (Oxford Univ. Press). The first edition of the book won the prestigious Clifford G. Christians Award for Research in Media Ethics. His other major text, Living Media Ethics (Routledge/ Taylor & Francis), also won that same research award.

Social media is programmed to sell and surveil simultaneously, Dr. Bugeja says. For decades, journalism emphasized the so-called “5Ws and H”: “who, what, when, where, why and how.” However, you do not need to know “why” to make a sale.

“This is the state of journalism in Malta and the U.S,” Dr. Bugeja says. “We know how, what, where and when something happened to whom, but do not know why.” This allows political parties to insert the “why,” dividing society politically so that we distrust each other.

Drs. Grech and Bugeja also discuss how teenagers in Malta and the United States learn about social media by trial and error. Both professors have 16-year-olds. Teens accept everyone at first as “friends” and are trolled or bullied and then slowly utilize the privacy controls. By then, though, the damage has been done. They may have been hurt psychologically.

Dr. Bugeja expects pushback to his determinist views. He believes that technology has the power to control us unless we know its computer program and have read the terms of service. He also acknowledges the incredible power of technology, which can be used for the common good, especially when a journalist or blogger creates fact-based content that seeks common bonds instead of division.

Dr. Bugeja says it doesn’t matter whether those attending the conference agree or disagree with his views, shaped by the French-Maltese philosopher Jacques Ellul.

Ellul believed  technology is neither moral nor immoral. It is amoral. As soon as you insert it into an existing system, it changes that system and its culture. Insert it into education, and education is all about the technology. Insert it into the economy, and the economy is all about technology. Insert it into politics and journalism? You get the same result.

According to Dr. Bugeja, everyone attending the conference has an opportunity to take back to their institutions the notion that technology and media literacy should be a required course. “We owe it to Generation Z,” he says, so that students can utilizing technology to empower themselves and their ideals.

The 2019 3CL conference will be held on 10 to 11, October 2019, at the Mediterranean Conference Centre in Valletta, Malta.

The registration fee includes access to conference sessions, conference materials, lunches, tea/coffee breaks, and the opening reception on the evening of 9 October, 2019. Registration closes on 3 October, 2019.

  • Early Bird Registration (up to 31 July 2019) – €275
  • Regular Registration – €375
  • Registered Non-profit Organisations – €100
  • Full-time Student Registration – €50

CLICK here to register.