Social Media & Audience Engagement Intern

The same story reaches different audiences differently depending on the platform, and simply posting an identical link everywhere wastes most of its potential.

This task is produced entirely at home using free design tools.

Select one published news story with genuine substance, meaning something a reader would gain from rather than a passing item.

First, study how platforms differ.

Examine how three news organisations post the same story across their accounts and record what changes between platforms in length, tone, visual treatment, and the element each leads with.

Now package your story four ways.

Produce a text led version for a platform where words carry the post, written to stand alone so it has value even to someone who never clicks.

Produce an image led version with a graphic you design yourself carrying the core fact.

Produce a short video script of about forty five seconds structured so the first three seconds earn the rest.

Produce a discussion led version that opens a genuine question to the audience rather than posting bait.

For each version, write the accompanying copy, the hook, and any hashtags, and record which element of the story you chose to lead with and why.

Then write an accuracy check.

Social posts frequently overstate what the story establishes, so review all four and rewrite any that stretch beyond the reporting.

Write alt text for every image and graphic you produce, describing what it shows for readers using screen readers.

Accessibility is a basic obligation rather than an optional extra, and a graphic carrying the key fact excludes part of your audience entirely if it is undescribed.

Then consider the reader who never clicks through.

For each package, ask whether someone who reads only your post comes away with an accurate understanding.

Posts written purely to force a click frequently leave non clicking readers misinformed, which is a larger group than the one that clicks.

Also plan the follow up.

Write what you would post several hours later to extend the story's life, and what you would post if the story developed further.

Submit all four packages including the graphic with alt text and the video script, the platform study, the reasoning for each, the follow up plan, and the accuracy check.

Audience teams make decisions from data rather than instinct, and the data frequently contradicts what feels obvious.

This study uses only publicly visible engagement figures and can be done entirely from home.

Choose two news organisations with active public accounts, ideally differing in size or focus so comparison is meaningful.

Track at least twenty five posts from each over a period of one week.

For every post record the date and time, the topic, the format such as text, image, video, or link, the length, whether a question was posed, and the visible engagement figures including likes, shares, comments, and views where shown.

Build this into a spreadsheet designed for analysis rather than mere record keeping.

Now analyse systematically.

Compare average engagement by format, by topic, by posting time, and by length.

Identify the highest and lowest performing posts and examine what distinguishes them beyond the obvious.

Be careful about conclusions.

High engagement on outrage driven posts is a real finding but a poor strategy recommendation, so distinguish throughout between what gets engagement and what serves readers.

Write a findings report of about 800 words covering what the data shows, which patterns held across both organisations and which did not, and what you would and would not recommend based on it.

Include two charts and state the limitations of a sample this size honestly.

Separate correlation from cause here as well.

A post performing well at a particular hour may reflect the subject rather than the timing, and attributing the result to the wrong factor leads to confident but useless recommendations.

For each pattern you identify, state what else could explain it.

Then examine the comments rather than only the counts.

Read the replies on your highest and lowest performing posts and record what readers actually said, since engagement figures measure reaction without revealing whether it was approval, confusion, or anger.

Also consider what the visible numbers cannot show, including how many people saw a post without reacting and how many reached the article itself.

Submit the spreadsheet, the charts, the comment analysis, and the findings report.

Comment sections and replies are where a publication meets its audience directly, and handling them consistently requires a protocol rather than individual judgement under pressure.

This task is research and design work done at home.

First, research existing approaches.

Find and read the published community guidelines or comment policies of at least three news organisations, which are openly available.

Record what each permits, what each prohibits, and what each says about moderation.

Next, collect real situations.

From publicly visible comment sections and replies, document at least twelve difficult cases.

Include factual corrections from readers where the reader is right, factual corrections where the reader is wrong, abuse directed at journalists, misinformation posted in replies, coordinated pile ons, legitimate criticism of coverage, and off topic disruption.

Now design the protocol.

For each category, define the response: reply publicly, correct the article, reply privately, hide, report, escalate to an editor, or take no action.

State the reasoning behind each decision and define the time within which it should happen.

Write model responses for six of your documented situations, in the actual words you would post.

These matter, because a correct decision delivered badly still damages trust.

Add a section on protecting staff, covering when abuse should be escalated rather than absorbed by the individual journalist.

Distinguish carefully between criticism and abuse, because the two are frequently confused and the consequences of confusing them run both ways.

Readers who challenge coverage robustly are exercising a legitimate function, and a publication that moderates them as abuse loses accountability.

Define the boundary in your protocol with examples on each side.

Then handle the correction case properly.

When a reader is right and the article is wrong, the reply is only part of the response, since the article itself must be corrected.

Set out how a comment thread triggers the correction process.

Also write the escalation path, stating who decides in contested cases and how quickly, since community decisions made slowly are often worse than those made wrongly.

Submit the research summary, the documented situations, the full protocol with the criticism boundary defined, the escalation path, and the model responses.

Newsletters reach readers directly rather than through an algorithm, which changes what makes them work: a clear reader, a consistent promise, and genuine value in every edition.

This task is entirely writing and planning.

First, study the form.

Subscribe to or read at least four news newsletters in different styles.

Record the structure of each, its length, its tone, how it opens, and what makes you keep reading or stop.

Now define your own.

Choose a niche specific enough to serve properly.

Write a reader definition covering who they are, what they already know, what they need that is not easily available elsewhere, and when they would read it.

Write your promise in one sentence stating what a subscriber gets in every edition.

Write one complete edition.

Include a subject line under 50 characters, an opening that earns the reader's attention immediately, three to five curated items each with your own original commentary rather than a summary, one longer original section of about 300 words, and a closing that gives a reason to return.

The whole edition should run 800 to 1000 words.

Then write the growth plan.

Identify where your defined reader already is, how you would reach them, what would make someone subscribe, and what would make them stay.

Define the two metrics you would judge success by and explain why those two.

Write three subject lines for your edition rather than one, and explain which you would send.

The subject line decides whether the work inside is read at all, yet it is routinely written last and in haste.

Check that each is accurate, since a subject line that oversells produces opens followed by unsubscribes.

Then plan the second and third editions in outline, because the difficulty with newsletters is never the first one.

Sustaining a consistent promise week after week is what separates those that survive from those that stop after a month.

Also write the welcome message a new subscriber would receive, setting out what they will get and how often.

Submit the newsletter study, the reader definition, the complete edition with all three subject lines, the two follow up outlines, the welcome message, and the growth plan.