how “Le Monde” manages contributions in live follow-ups

“Why don’t you skip my question?” », “I’m trying my luck for the umpteenth time…”, “I’m censored”, “You always publish the same ones! », etc Each time The world covers a live event, allowing its readers to ask questions in real time, we receive a number of contributions of this kind, more or less cordial. The live monitoring of the war in Ukraine, uninterrupted since the night of Wednesday February 23 to Thursday February 24, is no exception to this rule.

Live: the live of the day on the war in Ukraine

For more than ten years, The world covers live events guided by three main principles: rigor, responsiveness and interactivity. As with all the content we publish, we have always been committed to placing accuracy and clarity of information before speed. If the latter logically remains an essential element during the real-time coverage of an event, we will always prefer to arrive a little later than our colleagues but with reliable and certified information. A rule that has become particularly essential when the news (and our “lives” with it) concerned terrorist attacks in particular.

This caution can sometimes lead to frustration or impatience, but in most cases if something you have read elsewhere is not published in our direct, it is because we do not have ( or not yet) been able to verify it or understand its full scope. It is also possible that the answer has already been given a few hours earlier (do not hesitate to go back to the live thread before asking your question) or that it is available elsewhere on our site, in one of the many articles that we publish every day about the war in Ukraine.

We also sometimes have purely practical and human constraints when, at certain times of the day and especially at night, the staff is smaller and does not allow us to monitor the news and answer questions as much as we would like.

Read also War in Ukraine: behind the scenes of the live of the “World”

Be that as it may, we strive to always maintain this interactivity and this link with readers, to which we are attached; almost all the questions are well read, except in very intense news peaks where the flood of contributions is so great that it becomes impossible to follow. Since February 24, we have received a total of nearly 80,000 questions and comments, an average of approximately 2,600 per day.

We were able to see, during the daily lives at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, in March 2020, how essential it was to offer a place of exchange and answers for citizens worried or lost in health rules. which changed every week.

Read also “We were about fifteen journalists to take turns over these 83 days of “live” from the “World””

The attention that we pay to the contributions also applies, alas, to the few unpleasant comments that we receive from time to time, in a reproving, mocking tone or sometimes bordering on insulting, and which, by force, can weigh on the serenity of the work of the journalists who take turns twenty-four hours a day to inform you live.

This is also an opportunity to specify that these journalists are not specialists in the war, Ukraine or Russia but generalist journalists, whose first area of ​​expertise is the treatment of current affairs in real time, in compliance with the rules of rigor mentioned above. However, the longer the war lasts, the more some of the questions received are extremely precise, even pointed, and we are not always able to answer them immediately. This is why we organize, as often as possible, chats with specialists, whether they are external contributors (like this exchange with Michel Goya, historian and former soldier) or journalists from our editorial staff (Tuesday, three of them answered your questions on the economic consequences of the war). We also regularly send the most frequently asked questions to the specialized editorial departments in order to then compose and update articles bringing together the answers to your main questions.

Read also War in Ukraine: the answers of the “World” to your most frequently asked questions

Finally, some of the questions received almost amount to prediction or divination; many of you want to know the future and know the end of the story (and that’s understandable). “What if…?” », “How will such a situation evolve? », “What does such a leader think? », etc However, it is a very delicate exercise, if not impossible, for a journalist to lend himself to current affairs-fiction, on the basis of hypotheses. In a situation like this, where the war is also played out in the field of information and influence, it seems to us more than ever crucial to limit ourselves as much as possible to real and proven facts.

The staff taking turns on a live “World”

  • About fifteen editors twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week;
  • 6 deputy editors;
  • 12 correctors to proofread the live as well as the articles of the “desk” (read our article on this subject);
  • 6 “home editors” (HE) to constantly update the home page of the World ;
  • 3 “social media editors” (SME) to bring The world on social networks;
  • 2 iconographers to liaise with the photographers mobilized and post the latest images from the field;
  • 6 journalists from the Infographics department (4 cartographers and 2 researchers), in order to produce situation maps, posted daily in the live stream.

The world

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button