Developing these more strategic relationships comes at a cost for advertisers. Brand managers at Kellogg’s are being trained so that they can spot the right influencers for their briefs as well as use a mix of qualitative and quantitative metrics to monitor their effectiveness.

$300

holo chess

Challenge

StarWars

StarWars

all

tiles

2d

$400

home assistant

assistant

assistant

Firstly

least

3d

a

Mixx

Again

910

Starwars

Starwars

have

Insider

Thier are two models options to choose from

LCD  with

If one needs that extra power or specs bump with minute design changes over the previous generation then should simply grab it.

The best thing about owning the Moto Z/Moto Z Play is the fact that you would not feel obsolete so easily.

After LG pulling out of Modular smartphone race, Lenovo Moto Z series remains to be the only successful modular smartphone series in the world.

launch of the Moto Z series, the Lenovo Phab 2 Pro with AR demos.

we have got to know that the phone will be announced in India on the 8th of June. Making India the second market after South America to get the device.

"This is an issue that cuts broadly across the social media and news industries, and we are working together to help people better understand the sources and authenticity of information before they share with their friends or family," Justin Osofsky, Facebook's vice-president of global operations and media partnerships, told AP.

"If you build the freeway, you have the responsibility to make sure the freeway is safe," he told AP."You shouldn't just say that if there are potholes, drivers should try to avoid them."

"Publishers need to take this finding seriously going forward and think about their readers as ambassadors to cultivate. Social media sites should also think seriously about transparency when it comes to emphasising where news articles originate."

The Media Insight Project had this advice for journalists, their employers, and social media networks like Facebook:To publishers and journalists: Your readers and followers are not just consumers to monetise, instead they may be social ambassadors whose own credibility with their friends affects your brand's reputation. It is the sharer's credibility, more than your own, which determines other people's willingness to believe you and engage with you. This underscores the importance of news organisations creating strong communities of followers who evangelise the organisation to others.To news-literacy advocates: In light of growing concerns about "fake news" spreading on social media, this experiment confirms that people make little distinction between known and unknown (even made-up) sources when it comes to trusting and sharing news. Even 19 per cent of people who saw our fictional news source would have been willing to recommend it to a friend.To Facebook and other social networks: Facebook and other social networks could do more to emphasise and provide information about the original sources for news articles. The fact that only two in 10 people in our experiment could recall the news reporting source accurately after seeing a Facebook-style post suggests that basic brand awareness has a long way to go. We found that sharers affect perceptions more than the original news reporting source — but might that change if Facebook made the reporting source label more prominent?

Ms Wardle said the research was a wake-up call for journalists, who should think of themselves as creators of individual "atoms of content", rather than focusing on their brand."Create content that is shareable, do excellent journalism that will be shared — but know that this will not always be enough," she said.

"So as citizens of information and consumers of information, we have to learn how to be critical of the information that we consume and journalists have got an important role to play in helping audiences navigate the news ecosystem.

"Times have changed. It used to be that we had gatekeepers; we had the ABC. [People] went to the newsagent and got their paper and paid their money. Now news comes to us via text message or email or Twitter or Facebook," she said.

"We now become publishers when we share. So we have a responsibility to think about that before we retweet."Claire Wardle

"When people see news from a person they trust, they are more likely to think it gets the facts right, contains diverse points of view, and is well reported than if the same article is shared by someone they are sceptical of," the researchers wrote.

The study found that what mattered most was whether the story was posted to Facebook by someone trusted, or someone previously tagged as not trusted by the social media user.

The study by the Media Insight Project found that people's trust in a piece of content on Facebook was stronger if they trusted the person who shared it — regardless of what organisation published it.

Your favourite social media star is more influential than media organisations that have built up their audience's trust over decades, according to a recent experiment.

Following the Guardian action, Google and YouTube promised to make significant changes to its policies to deal with the problem. A spokesman said: “We have strict guidelines that define where Google ads should appear, and in the vast majority of cases, our policies work as intended, protecting users and advertisers from harmful or inappropriate content. “We accept that we don’t always get it right, and that sometimes, ads appear where they should not. We’re committed to doing better, and will make changes to our policies and brand controls for advertisers.”

David Pemsel, the Guardian’s chief executive, wrote to Google to say that it was “completely unacceptable” for its advertising to be misused in this way.

The use of programmatic trading, which automates the process of buying and selling advertising online , is becoming increasingly controversial amid concerns that it both hurts media revenues and supports extremist material.

Earlier this week, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport held a private ministerial meeting with news publishers and technology platforms to discuss the issue of fake news and the programmatic environment which supports it.

The content included YouTube videos of American white nationalists, a hate preacher banned in the UK and a controversial Islamist preacher.

The Guardian has withdrawn all its online advertising from Google and YouTube after it emerged that its ads were being inadvertently placed next to extremist material.

Last year it was estimated as many as 85 per cent of the 100-strong workforce would choose to take redundancies, rather than make the move from Canberra to Armidale.

APVMA chief executive Kareena Arthy told Senate Estimates yesterday the chemical regulator would need to build a new facility in Armidale because there was no site big enough to hold it.

The $25-million move sparked allegations of pork-barrelling, given Armidale is in Mr Joyce's electorate of New England.

The Government also conducted its own $272,000 cost benefit analysis, which found there was no material economic advantages to support the relocation.

20 per cent of regulatory scientists had left the agency.

"Armidale was the first city to get the NBN, so this idea that you have to work out of Maccas, that's a choice they've made," he said.

Nationals MP Andrew Broad defended the situation, saying it would not be a permanent arrangement."I guess much public policy is constructed in coffee shops around Canberra by public departments," he said.

Public servants from the nation's chemical regulator are being forced to work from a local McDonald's in the northern New South Wales city of Armidale, due to a lack of office space.

I keep looking into new assistive technologies, and I have experimented with eye tracking and brain controlled interfaces to communicate with my computer. However although they work well for other people, I still find my cheek operated switch easier and less fatiguing to use. 

My main interface to the computer is through an open source program called ACAT, written by Intel. This provides a software keyboard on the screen.

Lenovo Yoga 260 

We are privileged to live in an era when we can use many new technologies – and the help of our audience – to do that. But we must also grapple with the issues underpinning digital culture, and realise that the shift from print to digital media was never just about technology. We must also address the new power dynamics that these changes have created. Technology and media do not exist in isolation – they help shape society, just as they are shaped by it in turn. That means engaging with people as civic actors, citizens, equals. It is about holding power to account, fighting for a public space, and taking responsibility for creating the kind of world we want to live in.

Traditional news values must be embraced and celebrated: reporting, verifying, gathering together eyewitness statements, making a serious attempt to discover what really happened.

“For decades, journalists at major media organisations acted as gatekeepers who passed judgment on what ideas could be publicly discussed, and what was considered too radical,” Tufekci wrote. The weakening of these gatekeepers is both positive and negative; there are opportunities and there are dangers.

Above all, the challenge for journalism today is not simply technological innovation or the creation of new business models. It is to establish what role journalistic organisations still play in a public discourse that has become impossibly fragmented and radically destabilised. The stunning political developments of the past year – including the vote for Brexit and the emergence of Donald Trump as the Republican candidate for the US presidency – are not simply the byproducts of a resurgent populism or the revolt of those left behind by global capitalism.

The truth is a struggle. It takes hard graft. But the struggle is worth it: traditional news values are important and they matter and they are worth defending. The digital revolution has meant that journalists – rightly, in my view – are more accountable to their audience. And as the Hillsborough story shows, the old media were certainly capable of perpetrating appalling falsehoods, which could take years to unravel. Some of the old hierarchies have been decisively undermined, which has led to a more open debate and a more substantial challenge to the old elites whose interests often dominated the media. But the age of relentless and instant information – and uncertain truths – can be overwhelming. We careen from outrage to outrage, but forget each one very quickly: it’s doomsday every afternoon.

It is hard to imagine that Hillsborough could happen now: if 96 people were crushed to death in front of 53,000 smartphones, with photographs and eyewitness accounts all posted to social media, would it have taken so long for the truth to come out? Today, the police – or Kelvin MacKenzie – would not have been able to lie so blatantly and for so long.

The impact on journalism of the crisis in the business model is that, in chasing down cheap clicks at the expense of accuracy and veracity, news organisations undermine the very reason they exist: to find things out and tell readers the truth – to report, report, report.

In the words of my colleague Mary Hamilton, the Guardian’s executive editor for audience: “We’ve transformed everything about our journalism and not enough about our businesses.”

As the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas warned, back in 2007: “When reorganisation and cost-cutting in this core area jeopardise accustomed journalistic standards, it hits at the very heart of the political public sphere. Because, without the flow of information gained through extensive research, and without the stimulation of arguments based on an expertise that doesn’t come cheap, public communication loses its discursive vitality.

as I said in my 2013 AN Smith lecture at the University of Melbourne, “The Rise of the Reader”, it has induced “a fundamental redrawing of journalists’ relationship with our audience, how we think about our readers, our perception of our role in society, our status”.

My belief is that what distinguishes good journalism from poor journalism is labour: the journalism that people value the most is that for which they can tell someone has put in a lot of work – where they can feel the effort that has been expended on their behalf, over tasks big or small, important or entertaining. It is the reverse of so-called “churnalism”, the endless recycling of other people’s stories for clicks.

Instead of strengthening social bonds, or creating an informed public, or the idea of news as a civic good, a democratic necessity, it creates gangs, which spread instant falsehoods that fit their views, reinforcing each other’s beliefs, driving each other deeper into shared opinions, rather than established facts.

“Nowadays it’s not important if a story’s real,” he said in 2014. “The only thing that really matters is whether people click on it.” Facts, he suggested, are over; they are a relic from the age of the printing press, when readers had no choice. He continued: “If a person is not sharing a news story, it is, at its core, not news.”

the new measure of value for too many news organisations is virality rather than truth or quality.

In the last few years, many news organisations have steered themselves away from public-interest journalism and toward junk-food news, chasing page views in the vain hope of attracting clicks and advertising (or investment) – but like junk food, you hate yourself when you’ve gorged on it.

But when one platform becomes the dominant source for accessing information, news organisations will often tailor their own work to the demands of this new medium. (The most visible evidence of Facebook’s influence on journalism is the panic that accompanies any change in the news feed algorithm that threatens to reduce the page views sent to publishers.)

The old idea of a wide-open web – where hyperlinks from site to site created a non-hierarchical and decentralised network of information – has been largely supplanted by platforms designed to maximise your time within their walls, some of which (such as Instagram and Snapchat) do not allow outward links at all.

As Emily Bell has written: “Social media hasn’t just swallowed journalism, it has swallowed everything. It has swallowed political campaigns, banking systems, personal histories, the leisure industry, retail, even government and security.”

Whatever the motive, falsehoods and facts now spread the same way, through what academics call an “information cascade”. As the legal scholar and online-harassment expert Danielle Citron describes it, “people forward on what others think, even if the information is false, misleading or incomplete, because they think they have learned something valuable.”

Now, people distrust much of what is presented as fact – particularly if the facts in question are uncomfortable, or out of sync with their own views – and while some of that distrust is misplaced, some of it is not.

For 500 years after Gutenberg, the dominant form of information was the printed page: knowledge was primarily delivered in a fixed format, one that encouraged readers to believe in stable and settled truths.

When “facts don’t work” and voters don’t trust the media, everyone believes in their own “truth” – and the results, as we have just seen, can be devastating. How did we end up here? And how do we fix it?

“What they said early on was ‘Facts don’t work’, and that’s it. The remain campaign featured fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. It just doesn’t work. You have got to connect with people emotionally. It’s the Trump success.”

When a fact begins to resemble whatever you feel is true, it becomes very difficult for anyone to tell the difference between facts that are true and “facts” that are not.

if 99 experts said the economy would crash and one disagreed, the BBC told us that each side had a different view of the situation. (This is a disastrous mistake that ends up obscuring truth, and echoes how some report climate change.)

This was the first major vote in the era of post-truth politics: the listless remain campaign attempted to fight fantasy with facts, but quickly found that the currency of fact had been badly debased.

just over an hour after the result of the EU referendum had become clear, Ukip leader Nigel Farage conceded that a post-Brexit UK would not in fact have £350m a week spare to spend on the NHS – a key claim of Brexiteers that was even emblazoned on the Vote Leave campaign bus. A few hours later, the Tory MEP Daniel Hannan stated that immigration was not likely to be reduced – another key claim.

Then, after a full day of online merriment, something shocking happened. Isabel Oakeshott, the Daily Mail journalist who had co-written the biography with Lord Ashcroft, a billionaire businessman, went on TV and admitted that she did not know whether her huge, scandalous scoop was even true.

One Monday morning last September, Britain woke to a depraved news story. The prime minister, David Cameron, had committed an “obscene act with a dead pig’s head”, according to the Daily Mail.

“The British people have voted to leave the European Union and their will must be respected,” Cameron declared. “It was not a decision that was taken lightly, not least because so many things were said by so many different organisations about the significance of this decision. So there can be no doubt about the result.” But what soon became clear was that almost everything was still in doubt.

“It’s up to other people to decide whether they give it any credibility or not,” she concluded.

It seemed that journalists were no longer required to believe their own stories to be true, nor, apparently, did they need to provide evidence. Instead it was up to the reader – who does not even know the identity of the source – to make up their own mind. But based on what? Gut instinct, intuition, mood? Does the truth matter any more?