social-distributor

name	social-distributor
description	Convert approved articles into platform-optimized social posts. Multi-platform (Facebook, X/Twitter, LinkedIn, Bluesky, Threads). Legally defensible marketing copy—libel exposure is identical to article text. A/B test hooks. Metadata verified.

Social Distributor Skill

Overview

Social Distributor transforms a published, fact-checked article into platform-optimized social media posts that drive traffic while maintaining legal defensibility.

Critical principle: Marketing copy is legally liable to the same libel/defamation standards as the article itself. A misleading social hook can expose the newsroom to legal risk even if the article is accurate.

This skill covers:

• Platform-specific post optimization (Facebook, X/Twitter, LinkedIn, Bluesky, Threads)
• Hook generation (surprising fact, question, local paradox)
• Character limit optimization and platform formatting
• Legal defensibility (avoid editorializing, motive attribution, unverified claims in the hook)
• OpenGraph/metadata verification (social cards display correctly)
• A/B testing framework (test 2–3 hooks; measure CTR)
• Implementation workflow
• Common mistakes and red flags

---

Platform-Specific Posting Standards

Facebook

Audience Profile:

• General population (all ages, demographics)
• Prefer emotional hooks and storytelling
• Longer engagement (likely to read 3–5 paragraph posts)
• Heavy use of images/video

Post Format:

Element	Specification	Example
Hook (first 2 lines)	2–3 sentences; emotional appeal; no link in text	"We spent 6 months investigating a hidden problem affecting families in your area. Here's what we found."
Body (context)	3–5 sentences; summarize article, tease reveal; no spoilers	"Our team obtained internal documents showing..."
Image	1200×628px (16:9 ratio); avoid text overlay; attractive/surprising	High-quality photo from article or custom graphic
Link	Shortened URL at end (bit.ly, news.co/...)	"Read full investigation: [link]"
CTA (call-to-action)	"Read more," "Learn what we found," "See the full investigation" (not "Click here")	"Read the full investigation"
Hashtags	2–3 relevant (not #fb or platform meta-tags)	#Investigation #LocalNews #YourCity

Character Limit: None (Facebook de-prioritizes longer posts but doesn't truncate)

Example Post:

We spent 6 months investigating a hidden problem in your community.
We found: [one-sentence revelation].

Our reporters obtained internal documents showing [tease]. Here's what you need to know:
• [Key finding 1]
• [Key finding 2]
• [Call to action: Read full investigation]

Read the full investigation: [link]

#Investigation #LocalNews

---

X (formerly Twitter)

Audience Profile:

• News junkies, journalists, engaged readers
• Fast-moving feed; brevity rewarded
• Retweets/shares crucial for reach
• Prefer breaking-news or contrarian angles

Post Format:

Element	Specification	Example
Tweet 1 (hook)	280 chars max; one headline-like fact; no link	"Breaking: Municipal contracts worth $5M went to single vendor with no competitive bidding."
Tweet 2–3 (thread)	Build narrative; each tweet <280 chars; link at end	"We obtained city council records showing [detail]. [Link to article]"
Image	Optional (reduces text character count but increases engagement)	Social card/screenshot
Link format	Shortened (t.co auto-shortens; use bit.ly for tracking)	Standard news site link

Character Limit: 280 characters per tweet (including spaces, punctuation, links)

Threading Strategy:

Tweet 1 (hook):

Breaking: Municipal contracts worth $5M went to single vendor with no competitive bidding.

(137 chars)

Tweet 2 (data):

We obtained city council records revealing the vendor was awarded 47 of 50 contracts since 2020.
No other bidders were solicited.

(136 chars)

Tweet 3 (CTA):

Full investigation: [link]

Retweet Bait Tips:

• Lead with surprising number or contradiction
• Use "thread" format (encourages conversation)
• Avoid qualifiers ("may," "might," "allegedly") until evidence presented
• Tag relevant reporters/organizations (not spam)

---

LinkedIn

Audience Profile:

• Professional/business audience
• Longer form acceptable (up to 3,000 chars)
• Prefer data, trends, industry analysis
• Executive decision-makers, policy influencers

Post Format:

Element	Specification	Example
Opening hook	Professional tone; establish credibility/authority	"Our 6-month investigation into municipal procurement reveals systemic bias in contract awards."
Context/problem statement	2–3 sentences; why this matters to professionals	"In government, competitive bidding ensures fair resource allocation. When skipped, taxpayers lose."
Data/insight	3–5 bullet points; concrete findings	"• 94% of $5M in contracts awarded to one vendor • Zero competitive solicitations • Pattern consistent 2020–2024"
Takeaway	What should change; policy angle	"Governments must require competitive bidding documentation for all contracts >$50K."
Link	Full article link	"Read full analysis: [link]"
Image	Chart, graph, or data visualization (1200×628px)	Bar chart showing vendor concentration

Character Limit: 3,000 characters (includes spaces, line breaks)

Example Post:

Our 6-month investigation into municipal procurement reveals systemic bias in contract awards.

In government, competitive bidding ensures fair resource allocation. When skipped, taxpayers lose.

Key findings:
• 94% of $5M in contracts awarded to single vendor
• Zero competitive solicitations since 2020
• Pattern identified across 4 fiscal years
• Internal documents show decision-makers did not follow procurement policy

Governments must require competitive bidding documentation for all contracts >$50K. Transparency protects taxpayers.

Read the full analysis: [link]

---

Bluesky

Audience Profile:

• Early-adopter tech/media professionals
• Less algorithm-driven (chronological feed)
• Prefer thoughtful, nuanced discussion
• Smaller but engaged audience

Post Format:

Similar to X/Twitter but:

• Slightly longer than Tweet (300 chars approx.)
• More room for nuance and qualifiers
• Less "breaking news" expected; more analysis
• Threads encouraged (similar to Twitter)

Example Post:

We investigated municipal procurement over 6 months. Found: one vendor awarded 47 of 50 contracts worth $5M.

City council records show zero competitive bidding solicited. Either procurement policy wasn't enforced, or it was deliberately circumvented.

Full investigation: [link]

---

Threads (Meta's Twitter Alternative)

Audience Profile:

• Overlaps with Facebook (Meta ecosystem)
• Shorter attention span than Bluesky
• Prefer visual posts; threads format encouraged
• Growing but still niche

Post Format:

Treat like X/Twitter with Threads-specific features:

• Longer character limit (500 chars per thread post)
• Can build narrative across 10+ connected posts
• Hashtags less important than X
• Video performs well

Example Thread:

Post 1: "We spent 6 months investigating municipal contracts. What we found should alarm every taxpayer."

Post 2: "One vendor was awarded $5M across 47 contracts since 2020. Competitive bids? Zero."

Post 3: "City council records obtained by our reporters show procurement policy was either unenforced or deliberately bypassed."

Post 4: "The real question: was this negligence or corruption? Read our investigation: [link]"

---

Hook Generation Framework

Hook Types (with Legal Safeguards)

Hook Type	Pattern	Example	⚠️ Legal Risk	✅ Safe Version
Surprising Stat	"[Number]% of [X] shows [unexpected pattern]"	"94% of city contracts awarded to one vendor—zero competitive bids."	Low (if stat verified)	Same; fact from article
Question	"Did [decision-maker] know about [consequence]?"	"Did city council know competitive bidding was being skipped?"	MEDIUM (implies knowledge; avoids "deliberately" but hints at motive)	"City council records show competitive bidding was skipped. Why?" (observable fact, not motive)
Local Paradox	"[City/org] claims [principle]. Reality: [contradiction]."	"City claims fair procurement. Reality: one vendor got 94% of contracts."	Low (compares claimed vs. actual)	Same
Consequence Angle	"[X] means [Y impact] for [audience]."	"No competitive bidding means less oversight. Taxpayers lose."	Low (causal reasoning)	Same; state as analysis, not certainty
Human Impact	"[Group] affected by [finding]"	"5,000 families impacted by hidden water contamination—here's why."	Low (if specific, verifiable)	Confirm number before posting
Investigative Process	"We obtained [source]; here's what it shows:"	"We obtained 3 years of council records. Procurement is broken."	Low (if source real)	Same; link to source

Red-Flag Hook Language (AVOID)

Phrase	Why It's Risky	Safe Alternative
"City officials deliberately hid [fact]"	Attributes motive without stating evidence of intent	"City officials did not disclose [fact]" (observable action)
"Corruption uncovered"	Legal term; implies criminal intent (defamatory)	"Irregularities found in [specific process]"
"Mayor took bribes"	Explicit accusation; defamatory if unproven	"Mayor accepted $X from vendor; no disclosure filed" (observable fact)
"Taxpayers defrauded"	Assumes illegal intent; implies crime	"Taxpayers paid more due to [specific failure]"
"Cover-up"	Implies intent to hide; requires proof of motive	"Documents were not publicly disclosed" (observable)
"Mayor's cronies"	Character attack; not fact-based	"Contracts awarded to former mayor's business partner" (relationship is fact)

A/B Testing Framework

Test 2–3 hooks for the same article; measure click-through rate (CTR):

article: "Municipal Procurement Investigation"
publish_date: "2025-04-01"
platform: "Facebook"

hook_a:
  text: "We spent 6 months investigating city contracts. What we found is shocking."
  post_date: "2025-04-01 09:00 AM"
  reach: 5420
  clicks: 127
  ctr: "2.3%"

hook_b:
  text: "94% of city contracts went to one vendor. Zero competitive bids. Here's how it happened."
  post_date: "2025-04-01 11:00 AM"
  reach: 6100
  clicks: 289
  ctr: "4.7%"

hook_c:
  text: "Your tax dollars: $5M to one vendor, no questions asked. Our investigation explains why."
  post_date: "2025-04-01 02:00 PM"
  reach: 5900
  clicks: 201
  ctr: "3.4%"

winner: "hook_b"
insights: "Specific data (94%, one vendor) outperforms vague language (shocking, questions asked)"

Repeat: Repost winning hook to other platforms with format adjustments.

---

OpenGraph & Metadata Verification

Social Card Requirements

When article is shared on Facebook, X, LinkedIn, the platform reads OpenGraph (OG) metadata:

OG Tag	Purpose	Specification
og:title	Headline for social card	50–65 chars; same or variant of article headline
og:description	Summary for social card	155–160 chars; compelling hook, not just first paragraph
og:image	Thumbnail image	1200×628px (16:9); JPG/PNG; <200KB; unique per article
og:type	Content type	"article" for news
og:url	Canonical URL	Full article URL; no tracking parameters in OG tag

Verification Checklist

<!-- Example OG tags in article HTML -->
<meta property="og:title" content="Municipal Contracts: One Vendor Received 94% of $5M Awards">
<meta property="og:description" content="Our investigation reveals systemic procurement bias. City council records show zero competitive bidding over 4 years.">
<meta property="og:image" content="https://newsroom.org/images/article-2025-04-01-contracts.jpg">
<meta property="og:url" content="https://newsroom.org/articles/2025-04-01-procurement-investigation.html">
<meta property="og:type" content="article">

Test: Use Facebook Sharing Debugger (facebook.com/developers/tools/debug) to preview card.

• og:image renders correctly (not distorted, not placeholder)
• og:title displays (not truncated)
• og:description visible (all 155–160 chars shown)
• og:url links to correct article (no 404)

---

Character Limit Optimization

Conversion Chart by Platform

Platform	Limit	Strategy	Example
X/Twitter	280 chars	Brutal concision; use numbers; thread for context	"94% of $5M contracts to one vendor. Zero competitive bids." (67 chars)
Facebook	None	2–3 sentences + link + image (length doesn't matter, but ~200 chars for preview)	"We spent 6 months investigating municipal contracts. One vendor got 94%. We obtained the proof."
LinkedIn	3,000 chars	Use full allowance for context, data, analysis	Full paragraph + bullets + insight
Bluesky	~300 chars	Slightly more than X; allow nuance	"Our investigation: municipal contracts worth $5M awarded to single vendor. City claims fair procurement. Records show zero competitive bidding."
Threads	500 chars per post	Use threads for narrative; each post ~500 chars	5–10 connected posts, each building story

Optimization Rules:

1. X/Twitter: Count every character. Use numerals (94% not "ninety-four percent"). Cut articles ("the," "a"). Abbreviate ("muni" not "municipal").
2. Facebook: Assume first 200 chars visible in preview; hook hard, link at end.
3. LinkedIn: Use full space; data + insight beats brevity.
4. Bluesky/Threads: Treat like X but add 20–40 more characters for nuance.

---

Libel Safety in Marketing Copy

Legal Standard: Defamation

A social post is defamatory if it:

1. Makes a factual claim (not opinion)
2. About an identifiable person/entity
3. Is false
4. Is published (posted to social media = published)
5. Causes reputational harm
6. Is not protected speech (opinion, satire, true statement)

Marketing copy can be defamatory. Your headline can be accurate, but the social hook can be inaccurate or misleading.

Safe Phrasing Patterns

Risky Phrase	Safe Phrase	Why It's Safer
"Mayor took bribes"	"Mayor received $X from vendor; undisclosed in filings"	States observable facts; avoids criminal accusation
"Corruption at city hall"	"City procurement shows irregular spending patterns"	Describes finding; avoids legal-adjacent language
"Official lied to public"	"Official's statement contradicts released documents"	Compares claim to evidence; doesn't attribute intent
"Embezzlement investigation"	"City treasurer misappropriated $X; investigation ongoing"	Describes action; avoids legal conclusion
"Conspiracy uncovered"	"Three officials coordinated decisions affecting vendor selection"	Describes observable behavior; avoids conspiracy accusation

Pre-Publication Checklist (before social post)

• Claim in hook is in the published article (no new claims in marketing)
• Claim is not opinion (e.g., "was wrong" is opinion; "contradicts X" is fact)
• Claim names identifiable person/entity (or leaves vague if unverified)
• Claim is verified in the article (cite specific source/quote if challenged)
• No hedging language ("allegedly," "may have," "possibly") that undermines certainty (unless source itself uncertain)
• No motive attribution ("deliberately," "intentionally") without explicit evidence of intent
• No inflammatory language ("liar," "crook," "corrupt") if not legally precise

---

Implementation Workflow

Pre-Publication (Before Article Publishes)

1. Coordinate with copy-review & final-editor-review (social marketing is part of publication package)
2. Draft 3 hook options (send to editor for approval before article goes live)
3. Prepare OG tags (og:image, og:description) and verify
4. Prepare image assets (1200×628px social card)
5. Test OpenGraph (use Facebook Sharing Debugger, Twitter Card Validator)

Day 1: Publication

1. Post hook A (9:00 AM) to flagship platform (likely Facebook or X)
2. Measure engagement for 1–2 hours (see CTR, reach)
3. Post hook B (11:00 AM) to test alternative angle
4. Measure performance (compare CTR)
5. Decide winning hook for replication on other platforms

Day 2–3: Cross-Platform

6. Repost winning hook to all platforms (adjusted for character limits):

   • X/Twitter version (280 chars)
   • LinkedIn version (3,000 chars; more context)
   • Bluesky version (300 chars; nuanced)
   • Threads version (build as 5–10 post thread)

7. Tag relevant accounts (journalists, organizations, decision-makers mentioned in article—sparingly, not spam)

8. Engage with replies (respond to comments; answer reader questions; cite article for fact-checks)

Ongoing: Repromote

9. Week 1: Repost hook to different audiences (e.g., if originally morning, post evening)
10. Month 1: Every 1–2 weeks, repost to new followers (they didn't see original)
11. On anniversary: Repost article annually; update hook if new related story breaks

---

Common Mistakes & Red Flags

Hook Writing Mistakes

Mistake	Why It's Bad	Fix
New claim in hook not in article	Defamatory if false; readers click expecting to see evidence they won't find	Every social claim must appear verbatim (or close paraphrase) in published article
Clickbait headline ("This One Trick Will Shock You")	Low-quality audiences click; high bounce rate; undermines credibility	Use specific fact from article as hook; avoid hype
Motive attribution ("Mayor deliberately bypassed procurement to help friend")	Defamatory if motive unproven; states criminal intent	Rephrase: "Mayor bypassed procurement; vendor is campaign donor [cite]" (facts, not motive)
Hedge language ("Possibly the largest contract award...")	Weakens authority; readers unsure if true; poor CTR	If verified: "Is the largest contract..."; if uncertain, don't post yet
No specific detail ("City hall in crisis")	Too vague; no reason to click; looks like sensationalism	Add fact: "97% of contracts to one vendor; no competitive bids"
Call-out/tag every person mentioned	Spam; looks aggressive; may trigger harassment reports	Tag only directly quoted/interviewed sources; max 2–3 tags per post

Metadata Mistakes

Mistake	Why It's Bad	Fix
og:image is generic placeholder	Social card looks low-quality; low CTR; appears lazy	Create unique social card per article; use article photo or custom graphic
og:image is >200KB	Slow to load; may not display; wasted bandwidth	Compress to <200KB (use TinyPNG); maintain 1200×628px ratio
og:title is click-bait	Misleads readers; high bounce rate; damages publication credibility	og:title should match or closely reflect article headline
og:description is first paragraph copy-pasted	Boring; no hook; poor preview	Write compelling og:description (155–160 chars) that entices click
og:url includes tracking parameters	OG tag should be canonical; may break social caching	Use clean article URL without utm_source, etc. (add tracking to actual posted link separately)

A/B Testing Mistakes

Mistake	Why It's Bad	Fix
Only post one hook; declare "winner" based on gut feeling	No data; subjective; can't replicate success	Always test 2–3 hooks; measure CTR; declare winner after 2 hours
Post all hooks at same time	Can't isolate which hook performs; confounding variables (time of day)	Stagger hooks by 1–2 hours; control for timing
Test on different platforms ("Facebook wins, so Twitter loses")	Audiences different; can't compare X hook to Facebook hook	Test different HOOKS on SAME platform; compare apples to apples
Stop after first test; never repeat	One win ≠ pattern; may have been timing luck	Run 2–3 A/B tests over different weeks; identify pattern

Engagement Mistakes

Mistake	Why It's Bad	Fix
Ignore comments/replies	Readers feel unheard; damages relationship; looks dismissive	Reply to first 10–20 substantive comments; thank shares
Argue with critics in replies	Escalates conflict; looks unprofessional; algorithm downranks	Reply once (factually); don't continue debate
Promote without fact-checking replies	Comments may contain misinformation; newsroom doesn't correct	Pin your comment with fact-check if significant inaccuracy in top reply
Repost at same time every day	Algorithm learns pattern; deprioritizes	Vary posting time; post when audience is most active (use platform analytics)

---

Legal Defensibility Checklist

Before posting any social hook:

• Claim appears in published article (exact quote or close paraphrase)
• Source is cited in article (primary document, named source, or both)
• Claim is factual (not opinion; "was" not "was wrong")
• No motive attribution ("deliberately," "intentionally," "conspired") without explicit evidence
• No character attack language ("liar," "crook," "corrupt") unless legally precise (convicted felon, etc.)
• Hedging language removed (if claim is confident in article, be confident in post)
• Identifiable person/entity (if claiming wrongdoing, name them; if unverified, attribute or leave vague)
• OpenGraph metadata verified (og:image displays, og:description compelling, og:url works)
• No affiliate links or paywall tricks (link goes to free version of article if applicable)

---

Escalation

If a social post receives cease-and-desist or legal threat:

1. Take post down immediately (while review happens)
2. Screenshot the post and threat (preserve evidence)
3. Alert legal/editor with link to threat and full post text
4. Do NOT engage with threatening account or reply to threat
5. Do NOT re-post or defend on social
6. Let newsroom's legal team handle response

---

Platform-Specific Best Practices Summary

Platform	Best for	Max Hooks	Posting Frequency	Image Requirement
Facebook	Emotional, narrative	3–5	1–2x daily	Required (1200×628px)
X/Twitter	Breaking, timely, threads	5+ (thread)	2–4x daily	Optional (helps)
LinkedIn	Professional, analysis, B2B	2–3	3–5x weekly	Recommended (charts)
Bluesky	Engaged, early-adopter	2–3	1x daily	Optional
Threads	Narrative, long-form	1 (as thread)	2–3x weekly	Optional (builds engagement)