THE RELATIONSHIP between news organizations and platform companies has become far closer far more quickly than anyone predicted. The increasing influence of a handful of West Coast companies is shaping every aspect of news production, distribution, and monetization.
新聞組織和平台業者之間的關係是如此緊密，以致於愈來愈難以預測，這些來自美國西岸的科技公司正改變了新聞的生產、傳佈和營利等思維。
In the past 18 months, companies including Facebook, Apple, Twitter, Snapchat, and Google have moved from having an arm’s length relationship with journalism to being dominant forces in the news ecosystem. By encouraging news publishers to post directly onto new channels, such as Facebook Instant Articles and Snapchat Discover, tech companies are now actively involved in every aspect of journalism.
過去18個月以來，包括臉書、蘋果、推持、Snapchat和谷歌等公司，與新聞業的關係已從原本的曖昧不明，轉變成強勢主導新聞生態的力量。藉由像是臉書即時新聞（Instant Articles）或是Snapchat的Discover服務，鼓勵出版商直接發佈內容，這些科技公司正參與了新聞業各方面的轉變。
At the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia Journalism School, we have conducted the first research aimed at evaluating how newsrooms are adapting to the rising influence of technology companies. We found that some platforms are becoming publishers, either by design or by default.
在哥倫比亞大學數位新聞中心（Tow Center），我們進行一項研究，試圖了解新聞室受制於這些科技巨擘影響下的生存模式。研究發現，許多平台業者已逐漸成為出版者，不論主動或被動的。
Publishers, meanwhile, are experiencing a more rapid than expected shift in distribution towards platforms. In the research, newsroom personnel at every level expressed anxiety about loss of control over the destination of stories, the power of their brand, and their outlets’ relationship with the viewer or reader.
出版商也正經歷前所未有的轉變；根據這項研究，每個層級的新聞工作者，都對失去新聞發佈的權力、品牌的力量和與讀者的關係，感到焦慮。
Many acknowledged that technology companies are, for some newsrooms, a potential lifeline. Individuals within news organizations felt they lacked the resources or expertise to create the level of innovation and access to new audiences that social media and platform companies offer.
許多人體認到，這些科技公司對新聞室來說是救命仙丹。新聞組織工作者覺得資源或專業的欠缺，是這行業無法創新的主因，也連帶影響接觸新的閱聽人，而社交媒體和平台業者正好填補這塊的不足。
But there are critical issues of democratic and civic concern that have little visibility or priority, either within news organizations or platforms.
但仍有一些民主和公民社會所關注的議題，無法被優先看見，新聞組織和平台業者都有類似的情況。
We found that:
我們發現：
•Publishers are posting an ever-increasing volume of stories directly to many different platforms, but with little insight as yet into what the long term effects might be.
•出版商提供龐大的新聞量給不同的平台，卻鮮少對趨勢有獨到的見解。
•Some platforms and publishers have a very close relationship, with some platforms providing equipment or financial incentives to publishers that use their tools. At least one platform even requires publishers to pay it a percentage of ad revenue in exchange for using the platform.
•一些平台業者和出版商維持著緊密的關係，一些平台甚至提供設備和資金給出版商。研究發現，至少有一家平台業者要求出版商回饋1%的廣告收益來交換上架的權利。
•Scale matters. Some smaller and local newsrooms feel left out, whilst the larger or “more digital” publishers that have the closest relationships with platforms dominate attention.
•規模很重要。一些規模較小的地方新聞室覺得被冷落了，但較大規模或較具有數位化能力的出版商，卻吸引了平台的關注並保持緊密的合作。
•Publishers’ anxieties include a lack of data, loss of control, the uncertainty of financial return, and the potential obscurity of their brand in a distributed environment.
•在資訊如此分散的環境，出版商的憂慮包括資料的缺乏、失去控制權、財務回報上的不確定性，和自有品牌的沒落。
•The question of who owns the user highlights the biggest tension at the heart of the relationship between publishers and platforms. Is a reader of The New York Times on Facebook a New York Times reader, or a Facebook user reading the New York Times?
•「誰擁有使用者？」的問題點出了出版商和平台之間的緊張關係。一位透過臉書閱讀紐約時報的人，算是「紐約時報的讀者」嗎？或者只是一位「臉書用戶」在臉書上閱讀紐約時報呢？
•Civic and democratic issues not prioritised by either publishers or platforms include archiving distributed journalism, transparency in algorithmic distribution, concentration of power, and availability of data.
•公民和民主等議題，不被出版商或平台優先處理，也延伸出分散式的新聞、 演算法分配的透明度、權力的集中和資料的可用性等問題。
We spoke to more than 60 people who work in news organizations and platform companies, the majority through interviews, and a group of 15 social media managers through a round table held at Columbia Journalism School. Interviewees and roundtable participants were all directly involved in social distribution of news. We also conducted a week-long quantitative analysis of how publishers posted links or full articles across different platforms.
我們接觸了超過60位的新聞工作者和平台業者，大多數是透過訪談，也在哥大新聞學院舉行了一場座談會，和15名社交媒體經理進行討論，受訪者和會議參與者都曾直接參與新聞的發佈。對出版商如何在各不同平台上推送連結和整篇文章，我們也進行了一週的量化分析。
Some of the sentiments we heard from newsrooms and the patterns of adoption are very reminiscent of arguments first aired over the shift from print to the Web, but this time with far greater existential urgency. Social media and distributed content strategies are now seen as central to editorial decision making for the most digital newsrooms. A social strategy is now often a proxy for a mobile strategy.
我們從新聞室聽到的一些觀點和採用模式，和當初紙媒轉型到網路的情況是非常雷同，但這次更急迫。社交媒體和分散式內容策略己成為數位編輯室的決策的重點，行動媒體策略以社交媒體為優先考量。
At one end of the spectrum, the demands of the new ecosystem feel like a forced march. “To be honest, what we are experiencing right now is close to chaos,” a newsroom social media manager told us. “We have thrown so many new things at the organization in the last few years. This is just another new set of instructions.”
在光譜的一端，新的生態系統就像被迫長征一樣。「老實說，我們現在正面臨一場混亂，」一位新聞室社交媒體經理告訴我們。「在過去的幾年，我們已投入許多心力在這上面，這只是另一項全新的指示。」
In other places, though, newsrooms both enjoyed new creative opportunities and the results they saw from the spread of their journalism. “Platforms have given us way more creative freedom than we have had in the past to tell a story,” one journalist told us.
在其他方面，編輯部不僅享有創新的機會，也享受新聞傳播的結果。「在說故事上，平台提供了更多揮灑的空間」一位記者告訴我們。
Even at the local level, where the economics of Web scale have hit hardest, the possibility of using new infrastructure owned by Facebook or Google was alluring for some. “Our very small local sites will close, but they will retain their social presence,” said one local news publisher. “So we completely drank the Facebook Kool-Aid.”
也許是臉書或谷歌提供的基礎設施太吸引人了，在地方上，一些網站所受的打擊最沉重。「一些小的地方網站將關閉，但他們仍會存在」，一個地方新聞出版商這麼說。「所以我們完全著了臉書的道。」
Others were far more cynical about the drivers of competition in the mobile news world. “We are collateral damage in the war between platforms,” a manager at a local publication told us. “They’re fighting with each other…They will promise certain things to some, they’ll give [a publisher] a chance to play, but not to others.”
其他人對目前新聞競爭如此激烈，而感到激憤。「我們是平台戰爭的犠牲品」一位地方的出版經理告訴我們。「他們正在互相爭鬥……他們將對某些人承諾，出版商將能得到機會，而不是其他人。」
We gathered a range of experiences from isolated local newsrooms, where one interviewee admitted to still struggling with print deadlines and the decline of traditional publishing, to large legacy newsrooms that are aggressively embracing platforms. The latter group included CNN, which posts well over 2,000 pieces to third party platforms each week, and digital natives like BuzzFeed and Vox.com.
我們從地方新聞室蒐集到一些資訊，像是仍在紙媒和傳統出版業的消退中掙扎的例子，提供給正積極擁抱平台的大型新聞室做參考。後者包括每星期都轉貼2000 則新聞到第三方平台的CNN，還有數位原生網站像是 BuzzFeed 和 Vox.com。
The sense that the future of news is now in the hands of the technology industry was much more prevalent among those who were least able to access the resources of platform companies. The head of digital at one local news publisher was adamant that the bias within platforms was “effectively picking winners” among the publishers. Others were less sure. “What you have to remember about even Facebook is that it is really still run like a startup, and whilst their actions might unintentionally favour certain players, the reality is that it is much too chaotic in there for that to be the case,” the publisher of a digitally native publication told us.
新聞的未來現在掌握在科技業的手中，尤其對那些最不能接近這些平台的組織來說更是深信不疑。平台能有效的在眾多出版者中挑選贏家，「數位化」已成為地方新聞未來發展的「偏見」，其他因素則不再重要。「你要記住，即使臉書還像當初創立時那樣，他們的行為也可能無意中圖利於某些人，但現實是，這也夠混亂了」一位數位原生出版商這麼認為。
This grid shows nine diverse journalism companies posting across 21 different platforms.
9家新聞公司在21家平台的內容分佈情況
In our quantitative analysis, we looked at nine publishers, chosen for their diversity, across 12 different platforms. While it is clear that most publishers feel the need to be on most platforms, this is not at all reflected in the patterns of posting.
鑑於多樣性，我們挑選出9家新聞出版商，了解在21個不同的平台的使用情況。明顯的，多數出版商覺得需要在大多數平台上露出，但仍無法解釋目前的新聞發佈模式。
Although publishers are experimenting with new platforms and even messaging apps such as Line and WhatsApp, these still comprise a small minority of posts. Apple News was by far the most posted-to service in our sample, which is partly attributable to the very high volume of stories posted by CNN and The Washington Post and the automated nature of the feed into Apple News.
儘管出版商正在試驗新的平台和通訊軟體，像是Line和 WhatsApp，這仍只佔總發佈量的皮毛而已。在我們的案例中，蘋果新聞是發佈量最高的平台，這可能得歸功於CNN和華盛頓郵報的貢獻，和蘋果新聞的新聞蒐集服務。
A closer look at publisher-by-publisher figures for each platform shows the nuances in how different publishers are utilising different outlets. News organizations consistently post a high number of links on Twitter, despite the fact that nearly all publishers we spoke to saw lower referrals back to their own sites from Twitter when compared to Facebook or Google. Another interesting finding is the surge in individual ‘snap stories’ posted on Snapchat by newsrooms that are not present on the Discover channel. Publishers that did not manage to gain a coveted slot on the Discover news page are nevertheless producing ephemeral stories for Snapchat’s avid audience of mostly under-25-year-olds.The New York Times was the only publisher in our week-long analysis that did not produce anything for Snapchat; all eight other outlets published content via Snapchat Discover or Stories.
仔細來看每個出版商對應到各平台數據，顯示出不同的出版商利用不同內容組合的差別。新聞機構有很高的比例仰賴推特，儘管和臉書、谷歌相比，藉由推特上的連結，會再回到自己網站比例，相對是比較低的。另一個有趣的發現是，經過新聞室處理的Snapchat個人故事（snap stories）是激增的，但卻沒有反映在Discover服務上；那些對Discover服務沒興趣的出版商，仍然生產短暫的新聞給Snapchat 25歲以下的閱聽人。在我們為期7天的研究中，紐約時報是唯一沒有提供Snapchat新聞的出版商，其他8家都透過Discover服務或故事服務發佈新聞。
——————————————-
作者：Emily Bell
編譯：朱弘川
原文網址： http://www.cjr.org/tow_center/platforms_and_publishers_new_research_from_the_tow_center.php
