Pandemic-led changes to newsrooms look to be permanent and global

Image via PressGazette

The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism released The Changing Newsroom 2021 report. The report is based on a survey of 132 senior industry leaders from 42 countries, as well as a series of in-depth interviews.

These are the key findings:

  • ‘Hybrid working’ will soon be the norm for the vast majority of journalists. Respondents say their companies are now mostly (79%) on board with the shift to hybrid working and even more (89%) say they themselves are committed
  • Most respondents say their news organization is doing a good job with gender diversity (78%), but fewer say the same about ethnic diversity (38%) and attracting those from less advantaged backgrounds (37%) or with diverse political views (33%). In the light of the Black Lives Matter movement and greater awareness of historic injustices, ethnic diversity remains the biggest priority for media companies – identified by 35% as the single most important priority in terms of improving newsroom diversity, followed by gender diversity (26%) and greater diversity from less advantaged groups (17%).
  • While participants believe that efficiency (70%) and Employee well being (61%) gains from hybrid working, they also think collaboration (45%), creativity (48%), and communication (42%) suffer from it.
  • Participants said they still struggle to attract and retain technology and data skills which are in great demand elsewhere. However, most respondents remain broadly confident (63%) about keeping newsroom staff. Around half of the respondents (47%) felt that the pandemic has made recruitment and retention of media staff harder, with less than a fifth (17%) saying that it was easier.

The pandemic has affected some rapid changes in working spaces in the last two years. It is interesting to see how people experience these adjustments and how they would like to continue working.


Aaron Rodgers and the Media’s Trust Issues

(Photo by Christian Petersen/Getty Images)

Aaron Rodgers is one of the best players that the NFL has to offer, and a large aspect of the 2021 season has been COVID-19 and all of the rules, issues, and debates that come along with it. In this instance, all of these topics collide, as Aaron Rodgers contracted COVID-19 and was unvaccinated, but in August he gave the impression that he was vaccinated, which caused a roar. Many people are ridiculing him for this occurrence, which caused him to lash out on the NFL, the media, and “cancel culture.” In August, when asked about the vaccine, he claimed that he was “Immunized,” and would not judge teammates who did not receive the vaccine, which many took as the implication that he was vaccinated. He received homeopathic treatment from a doctor in the offseason and says he is allergic to an ingredient in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and did not get the Johnson & Johnson vaccine because of issues with blood clots. In his efforts to defend himself this week, he called out the NFL for “draconian measures” in their philosophies with the COVID-19 cases, as well as media for trying to “cancel him” in light of this controversy and other statements he has made in the past. His choice of wording in August was very technical and the media took it as he was vaccinated, but he was not, and is now not happy with the media trying to accuse him of lying and people trying to “cancel” him for not getting the vaccine, when that is deemed by many as the right thing to do for society.

Aaron Rodgers is a very smart, outspoken individual, in many cases, and this occasion is very interesting. He has an issue with the media for scorning him because of decision to not get the vaccine, as some have called him selfish or deem him to not being doing the “right thing,” by society’s standards. He also has an issue with the ridicule from the media for lying about getting the vaccine, but technically, he did not lie, he just chose his words carefully. Although he did give off the impression he was vaccinated, it is not safe to assume, which as a member of the media, there is an argument they should have not falsely reported or believed he was vaccinated. On the other hand, the media could have an issue with Rodgers because of this false impression, in which he could now lose his credibility with the media and they could no longer trust him with other statements he makes in the future. Rodgers has been accused of being sensitive in the past, which could be pointed out in this case, as he tries to defend himself against the “woke mob” and has put out many claims to defend himself for not getting vaccine. Although, not many people in media or on social media platforms are trying to cancel him, they are just ridiculing him for his loose wording and false impressions he made, as well as his choice to not get the vaccine. Overall, I understand some of Rodgers’ frustration because he technically never said he was vaccinated, but somebody with his proven intelligence should know the implication he gave off and how it may backfire if he were to get into a sticky situation like this. In reality, this will likely be brushed off into past news as the NFL season gears up for a playoff run, but Rodgers and the media both lost trust in each other in future encounters.

NBA Star Kyrie Irving is Anti-Vaccine?

The seven-time All Star and Brooklyn Net’s player, Kyrie Irving recently announced views about hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccinations. Irving serves as the Vice President of the players union and has blocked efforts made to impose a vaccine mandate.

Irving was born in Melbourne, Australia on March 23, 1992. He started his NBA career becoming a basketball star at St. Patrick High School in Elizabeth, New Jersey. After gaining attention for his athletic ability he committed to Duke University in 2009 working towards the opportunity to play professionally. He played for Duke University as a Blue Devil, and was drafted by the NBA to play for the Cleveland Cavaliers in 2011. Since then, Irving played for various teams in the NBA also playing alongside Hall of Famer’s. What wasn’t praised so much, was his recent announcement to remain unvaccinated. This decision sparked public backlash due to opposing efforts encouraging the public to get vaccinated. As confirmed this past week, the NBA will be withholding salaries from players who are currently unable to play because of their unvaccinated status. Meaning, Kyrie Irving could potentially miss out on half of his $34 million contract for the Brooklyn Nets home games.

We’ve entered the conversation of personal choice, COVID-19 culture, and “cancel culture“. As everyday people grew to adjust the new normal: wearing masks, using extra hand-sanitizer, or staying 6-feet a part, vaccine’s grew more probable. Private and public institutions began to mandate requirements for vaccine cards or proof of negative COVID-19 test results. Similar to the reaction of other pandemics such as the Swine flu and Ebola, people were hesitant about receiving the vaccine. Culturally, religiously, and politically there are many reasons people oppose to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. With the trust that “everyday” citizens have for high profile people, like basketball stars, Kyrie Irving is in the hot seat.

” I would just appeal to him, get vaccinated. Your fans want to see you. We all want you back. Your teammates want you back”

– De Blasio

Recently, YouTube made an effort to remove “anti-vaccine” content from their platform, as many people were mislead or misinformed by some channels. This was an effort to encourage Americans to receive both doses of the vaccines, to lower the casualty rates resulted from this virus. Because Irving has been an active figure for social justice in the NBA, fans were outraged by his punishment to bench Brooklyn Nets games for exercising his personal choice. Is Irving’s decision to remain unvaccinated sending the “wrong messages” to fans? Should the NBA be able to withhold pay from players who refuse to get vaccinated? Does Irving’s example of exercising his personal choice encourage others to do more research on vaccines? How will this impact the NBA? How will this impact American citizens in the workplace? Is this an invasion of the First Amendment?

New Zealand Declares to Win Corona

27일(현지 시각) 저신다 아던 뉴질랜드 총리가 자국 내에서 코로나 바이러스 감염증이 제거됐다고 선언하고 있다./AFP 연합뉴스
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern declares on the 27th (local time) that the Corona Virus infection has been removed in her country.

New Zealand, which has maintained a strong homeland blockade and a travel ban for more than a month since last month, has declared an end to the Corona crisis.

According to BBC and CNN, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said in a press conference on the 27th (local time) that the coronavirus had been “removed at this time.” Accordingly, the “four-stage” Corona alert issued to all New Zealand territories will be lowered to three levels as of 11:59 p.m. on the same day, and non-essential workplaces and schools that have been suspended will also be gradually opened from Friday. New Zealand is scheduled to decide on additional measures, including the lifting of restrictions on movement, on April 11.

Based on the U.S. Johns Hopkins University tally, 1,469 confirmed cases and 19 deaths have occurred in New Zealand so far. On the 26th, the number of newly confirmed patients decreased to one. Foreign media say this is due to a strong blockade of the country and a wide range of Corona prosecutors. In New Zealand, which has a population of less than 5 million, 129,320 tests have been conducted. It is 2.4 percent of the population.

However, the local government does not rule out the possibility of re-proliferation, and appeals to most people to stay at home and avoid all social contacts. Ashley Bloomfield, secretary general of New Zealand’s Department of Health, said, “Removing corona means that there are no new confirmed cases, and we don’t know where other confirmed cases will come from.” Prime Minister Ardern said, “We want to reopen the economy, but it’s not people’s social life.”

In the meantime, New Zealand has been under a strong containment policy since last month when the spread of the Corona regional infection began in earnest. New Zealand closed all borders and banned foreigners from entering the country. It imposed mandatory quarantine measures on all citizens who returned to their countries. It has also imposed closures on all offices, schools and restaurants since April 26. Unlike other countries such as the United States, it was not possible to order delivery or packaging at restaurants.


Employees who won’t be back to work because continuing to receive unemployment benefits.

Critics pointed out that the U.S. policy of “perpetual unemployment benefits” weakens workers’ willingness to return to work and consequently encourages unemployment. This is through a column titled “Our Restaurants Can’t Open Until August,” published by the Wall Street Journal on the 21st. Kurt Huffman, owner of “Chefstable,” a restaurant chain based in Portland, Oregon, contributed the article

According to the column, Huffman temporarily laid off about 700 employees on April 15 in the aftermath of the new coronavirus infection. The key is to survive as much as possible until the restaurant is reopened.

It has since endured with packaging and delivery services instead of operating in restaurants. About two weeks after closing, packaging and delivery operations went better than expected. Sales were only 30 percent higher than before, but many employees were needed again.

That’s when it hit a snag. Every time I called to ask them to come back to work, the employees expressed their refusal one after another. The reason was simple. They say that thanks to unemployment benefits, the more they work, the less they earn.

They said they could earn $10 to $16 a week just by staying at home now. This is due to the Federal Epidemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) program of the CARES Act, The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, which was enacted urgently after the outbreak of Corona 19. Rather than working full-time, he could earn $376 more every week. The inducement for reinstatement has vanished.

Sources :

U.S. President Donald Trump suspends funding to the WHO

Donald Trump stops US funding of WHO, saying it failed in its duty

U.S. President Donald Trump has taken out a super-strong stance of suspending funding to the World Health Organization (WHO).

According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on the 14th (local time), President Trump said in a press conference held at the White House that “the WHO has failed to fulfill its basic obligations” and that he will suspend funding while the WHO is investigating the Covid-19 response.

Last year, the U.S. paid the WHO $430 million and is expected to share less than $116 million this year, according to the WSJ.

President Trump cited the fact that the WHO covered up the seriousness of the Corona 19 situation on China’s side, causing the spread of the Pandemic. “If the WHO had worked properly for the dispatch of medical experts to China so that it could objectively assess the situation at the scene, and if it had worked properly in criticizing China’s lack of transparency, it could have reduced the death toll to a very small scale and saved thousands of lives,” he claimed.

However, analysts say that the move is aimed at shifting responsibility to the outside world in the face of criticism that President Trump has failed to prevent the spread of Covid-19.

Source :

Spotify stock ratings have been downgraded amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Spotify Shares Recover After Evercore Downgrade to Underperform ...

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Investment Banking Company Raymond James’s anaylyst, Justin Patterson has officially downgraded the music-dreaming giant’s stock rating from ‘Strongby’ to ‘Market Performance.’

Global streaming of Spotify’s top 200 songs fell about 12 percent from pre-Covid-19 levels, he said. Streaming of the top 200 songs dropped 16 percent in the United States and 20 percent in Italy, a hot spot where two coronavirus songs are in vogue. Potcasts are also on the decline, Patterson said.

Likewise, the report stressed that some Spotify users can switch to Amazon music because they rely on smart speakers like Amazon Alexa for home music streaming.

Spotify competes with Apple (AAPL), Amazon (AMZN), and Google (GOGL) in streaming videos.

Stock prices per share of Spotify have fallen (of course, as in the entire market), but most of the value of the coronavirus transfer has remained the same. Spotify executives are scheduled to deliver their financial reports for the first quarter of 2020 on April 29. During the corresponding earnings consultation, the top vendors will answer questions from investors. Inquiries can be submitted to Slido using the #SpotifyEarnings code.

Sources :

New Research Shows Belief of Pandemic’s Origin May Depend on What News Source You Watch

The research was conducted by the Pew Research Center as part of their Election News Pathways Project.

According to a poll research by the Pew Research Center, American viewers who watch MSNBC are more likely to believe the coronavirus developed naturally in Wuhan, China, while Fox News viewers are more likely to go the conspiracy theory route.

Virologists and researchers have stated that the deadly virus’s origin came from local wildlife, debunking quite a few of Fox News claims. The survey’s data listed that about 66% of the respondents who watch MSNBC believe COVID-19 occurred naturally. Meanwhile, approximately 37% of Fox News viewers think the same.

Back in February, during the early stages of this pandemic arriving in the United States, a Fox correspondent and analyst from Fox Asia, Gordon Chang, stated on the cable television network that the coronavirus may have originated from the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory. This is an incorrect possibility, fact-checked by scientists.

Along these lines, President Trump has often referred to the virus as the “China virus” or the “Chinese virus”. However, he mentioned in a recent interview with Fox News that he will stop using that phrase in spite of his claims that China has attributed the COVID-19’s origin to American soldiers in Wuhan. Whether or not this is true (in my opinion, it’s probably not true, considering the President has lied numerous times before), it has been labeled as “race-baiting” by critics. Others believe Trump’s attempt at pushing the blame towards China is a strategy to improve his declining approval rating. What do you think?