GLN 2025 - "10 Days Later" - ChatAbout

[Paul Terlemezian]

Session Leaders: 

• ChatGPT
• Paul Terlemezian

Zoom Details

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85383220879?pwd=mXpWalPwlyaYtyASPOrBHrY1E...

• Meeting ID: 853 8322 0879
• Passcode: 764101

Chat histor

You said:

I believe that journalistic integrity has become challenged by the rush to publish and as a result research and objectivity have been diminished and replaced by polarizing op-eds. I wonder if a new form of journalism - "10 days later" might have a ripple effect that would restore objectivity. The concept is a journalistic approach that revisits the headlines of today 10 days later. Well researched, validated, objective and free of political bias. The entity would reproduce the headlines from 10 days earlier with what we know now.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a sharp and thought-provoking concept — almost a “time-shifted journalism” model. What you’re describing with “10 Days Later” journalism could indeed be a corrective mechanism to the speed-first, accuracy-later model that dominates today. Let’s explore it:

Why it matters

• Current model: Newsrooms prioritize speed, breaking news, and hot takes, often at the cost of depth, accuracy, or objectivity. Retractions and corrections rarely get the same visibility.

• Your model: Waiting 10 days allows stories to develop, facts to emerge, misinformation to be filtered, and hindsight to create clarity.

Benefits

1. Accuracy & Objectivity – By design, it minimizes errors and knee-jerk reporting.

2. Trust Restoration – A slower, more reflective format could rebuild public trust in journalism.

3. Context & Consequences – Readers would see not just what happened, but how it played out — turning headlines into lessons, not just reactions.

4. Less Polarization – Removing the adrenaline of immediacy makes it harder to exploit outrage cycles.

Challenges

• Audience Habits – People are conditioned to want now. Would they read a “10 days later” piece when they already know the headline?

• Business Model – Advertisers chase clicks and immediacy; slow journalism would need another revenue model (subscriptions, philanthropy, partnerships with educators, etc.).

• Competition with Hot Takes – The noise of immediate reporting might still drown out the signal of delayed, thoughtful reporting.

Precedents

• Outlets like The Economist and ProPublica already lean toward slower, more reflective reporting, but they don’t frame it explicitly as “after-the-fact corrections” to the daily news cycle.

• Magazines like Columbia Journalism Review sometimes revisit stories to show what was missed or distorted.

• Some Substack writers do “retrospective” commentary, but not in a systematic, branded way.

Ripple Effects if Successful

• Could influence mainstream outlets to build their own “truth after time” departments.

• Could push social media platforms to highlight follow-up stories alongside initial viral headlines.

• Might elevate public expectations — making people less satisfied with instant, unverified reporting.

Possible Framing

• Branding: “10 Days Later” could be the explicit identity, much like 60 Minutes established its own journalistic rhythm.

• Format: Reproduce the headline and lede as originally written, then walk through:

  1. What we knew at the time.

  2. What we’ve since learned.

  3. What was wrong, misleading, or omitted.

  4. What the full picture now looks like.

  5. Why it matters.

It could function almost like a journalistic conscience — not replacing breaking news, but providing the reflective layer that’s missing today.

👉 Would you like me to sketch out what a sample “10 Days Later” piece might look like using a recent headline? That might help test whether the format feels compelling.

You said:

for now - why would this not work - who would object - how would it become even more polarizing - how might we protect its integrity?

ChatGPT said:

Great — let’s test the weak spots of your “10 Days Later” journalism idea by looking at objections, risks, and safeguards.

---

Why it might not work

1. Audience impatience – Many people want breaking news or instant confirmation of their worldview, not delayed context. “10 days later” could feel irrelevant to those conditioned to consume news in real time.

2. Commercial viability – Advertisers thrive on speed, clicks, and “engagement.” A slower model risks limited funding unless supported by subscriptions, donors, or institutions that value trust over traffic.

3. Echo chamber resistance – Those addicted to outrage or aligned with partisan media may dismiss it as “revisionist” or “biased,” even if it’s scrupulously fair.

4. Narrative lag – By the time the 10-day update arrives, audiences may have moved on emotionally, making it harder to capture attention unless the piece connects back to ongoing conversations.

---

Who would object

1. Partisan outlets – They profit from speed and outrage; they don’t want an objective after-the-fact voice correcting them.

2. Politicians and interest groups – A 10-day revisitation could expose spin or lies after the news cycle has already served their purpose.

3. Some journalists/editors – They may feel attacked or undermined if their initial reporting is critiqued publicly.

4. Social media platforms – Slower journalism is less compatible with their real-time engagement model.

---

How it could become more polarizing

1. Weaponization of “objectivity” – Each side could claim the “10 days later” reporting is secretly biased against them. Even the act of correction can feel like partisanship in a polarized environment.

2. Selective amplification – People might only share the “10 days later” pieces that support their side while ignoring the rest.

3. Fact-checking fatigue – Instead of calming debate, some readers may see the corrections as “gotchas” that deepen resentment.

---

How to protect its integrity

1. Governance model – Independent, nonprofit structure with transparent funding, like ProPublica or the Associated Press, to reduce perceptions of hidden agendas.

2. Diverse editorial board – Politically, culturally, and geographically varied reviewers who sign off on stories to keep bias in check.

3. Transparent methods – Publish the sources, fact-checking steps, and editorial decisions so readers can see how conclusions were reached.

4. Public accountability – Allow independent ombudsmen or external panels to critique the outlet itself.

5. Educational framing – Position it not as “correction” but as “context” — framing the work as a service to deeper understanding rather than a takedown of earlier coverage.

---

This model could succeed if integrity is baked into the DNA of the project, not bolted on later. The more transparent and participatory it is, the harder it is to dismiss as “just another biased outlet.”

⚖️ Would you like me to lay out how this could be tested small scale first (e.g., one issue, one platform, one pilot audience) to see whether it lands with people before scaling up?

You said:

yes

ChatGPT said:

Perfect — let’s think like a pilot project designer. The goal is to prove whether “10 Days Later” journalism resonates before investing big.

---

🧪 Pilot Design for “10 Days Later” Journalism

1. Pick a Narrow Focus

Start with one high-visibility, evolving story (not all news). Ideal test cases:

• A major court ruling or trial.

• A tech announcement with big promises.

• A political or corporate scandal with shifting facts.

• A natural disaster where early numbers often change.

👉 Criteria: It must be something where the first 48-hour reporting is full of uncertainty, and where the 10-day follow-up adds clear value.

---

2. Show the Contrast Clearly

Each piece should have a before/after structure:

1. Original headlines (screenshots) – show what was reported 10 days ago.

2. What we know now – carefully validated, fact-checked, balanced.

3. What changed – what was wrong, what was missed, what turned out accurate.

4. Why it matters – the consequences of the fuller truth.

This format is crucial because it makes the value obvious to readers.

---

3. Distribution Channel

Instead of launching a full news site, start lightweight:

• A Substack newsletter or Medium series – easy, low-cost, credible format.

• Cross-post to LinkedIn and X/Twitter to catch both reflective and real-time audiences.

• Consider YouTube shorts or TikTok for quick visual side-by-side “what was said / what we know now.”

---

4. Audience Test

• Recruit 200–500 early readers (friends, colleagues, professional groups, perhaps journalism schools).

• Ask them to rate each story on:

  • Clarity

  • Objectivity

  • Value (did this teach me something new?)

  • Trustworthiness

• Collect short testimonials: “This gave me a better perspective than the original news.”

---

5. Guard Against Polarization Early

• Use a neutral issue for the pilot (e.g., a tech failure, natural disaster reporting, or corporate blunder).

• Avoid hot-button partisan politics in the first test — otherwise people may dismiss it as left/right leaning before the model proves itself.

---

6. Success Criteria

The pilot succeeds if you can show:

• People say they learned something they didn’t know from the initial coverage.

• Readers describe it as more trustworthy than their usual news.

• There’s measurable repeat engagement (they come back for the next issue).

---

7. Integrity Safeguards (in Pilot)

• Publish your fact-checking method alongside the article.

• If possible, include a panel of volunteer reviewers with different perspectives to sign off.

• Be transparent about funding (even if it’s just you self-funding at first).

---

📌 If this resonates, it could grow into:

• A subscription newsletter with weekly “10 Days Later” roundups.

• Partnerships with universities as a teaching resource.

• Syndication to outlets that want to add depth to their real-time reporting.

---

Would you like me to draft a mock “10 Days Later” article on a recent headline (say, a tech company announcement, court case, or political event) so you can see exactly how the format would read to an audience?

You said:

not now - thank you!

ChatGPT said:

Got it — I’ll leave it there. Thanks for letting me explore the idea with you! If later you want to see how it looks in practice, I’d be glad to sketch out a sample.

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.

[Sherry Heyl]

Long, long ago at the beginning of web 2.0 before it was social media, I attended many blog meetups with Journalists who were trying to figure out how to compete with the new medium. Bloggers could get their content out faster whether it was correct or not. This took attention and therefore dollars away from media. So they decided that if you can't beat them, join them. This was the beginning of the end for journalism. Now, however, I am seeing content creators use streaming and online media to put out well thought-out pieces and interviews because the business model for them is much smaller. The large media companies have an overblown budget that they have to sustain. 

[Paul Terlemezian]

Thank you, Sherry. I hope that we are learning that there are many viable perspectives.

I wish to find news sources that I trust.

Trust is earned via relationship (do I really know you and do you really know me) and ethics (we each have the best of intentions for each other.)