Live data from Hacker News

The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

theatlantic.com

151–160 of 209 posts

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#151

We as an industry have kicked around "how to save journalism" for years now. Here's what I've got: If you want journalism, sponsor endowments for journalists to report in certain areas, like foreign policy or local government. At the same time, and critically, sponsor endowments for editors to put a tight reign on these journalists. Completely decouple good journalism for hunting-for-eyeballs. Then let the content cu…

> Completely decouple good journalism for hunting-for-eyeballs. Then let the content curators and aggregators make some kind of business out of it, if they can.

You're just moving the eyeball-hunting to the aggregators. Clickbait works. The human brain is just plain vulnerable to certain stimuli, and a business which exploits this has an advantage over one which does not.

In the short term, at least. If people will recognize this and choose to willfully select businesses which make a point to not do it, perhaps we can change things. There's just not enough public intent in this direction yet.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#152
post #70

"One analyst told The New York Times last year that 85 percent of all online advertising revenue is funneled to either Facebook or Google—leaving a paltry 15 percent for news organizations to fight over." I stopped reading here since the author obviously doesn't know what he/she is talking about and didn't bother looking it up.

Closer to 64%. But yes, two thirds of online ads to two entities, neither journalistic.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-22/google-an...

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#153
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walter Kirn made a similar argument[1] which you may enjoy reading in Harper's, but it is a subtle argument. He writes: > So here’s to the freedom to be led astray, which it would be folly to restrict, lest it foster complacency and tempt the devil. Because that’s what attracts him: foolproof safeguards. Like the one the Clinton campaign erected when, per WikiLeaks, it encouraged the nomination of a laughable, beatab…

Great article, thanks. It's a bit comforting to see there are still some reasonable people in the media.

[deleted]

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if I can link to wikileaks here but some of the emails showed collusion with the DNC in general and with the Clinton campaign in particular during the primaries. For an example, see the emails about the debate question leaked to the Clinton campaign for the primary debate in Flint, MI (although this was by someone, I think, hired by CNN who was later hired to head the DNC). https://www.washingtonpost.com…

Those very narrow allegations about one incident within the DNC are not the same as the entire corporate media colluding in Clinton's favor. I'm not happy about what the DNC did but it's not clear that swayed the outcome from an inevitable Bernie victory or that the DNC was part of a conspiracy with the media.

The emails also showed that both the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC reached out to highly-placed journalists (Ezra Klein, some others) to prop up Trump, Carson and Cruz as GOP candidates because there was a consensus that they would be "pushovers." Donald Trump received an exorbitant amount of media coverage for free throughout the campaign cycle.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is important to make a distinction between what has been reported, and what is true. Nothing is added to our site unless it is sourced from a credible source and all news from even credible sources that has anonymous sources is tagged as "Rumor/Unsourced". So let's say a credible source reports, using unnamed sources, that the national guard is going to be deployed to round up illegal immigrants. So we would write…

I applaud the effort but reckoning "credible" seems like a tough proposition. How and by whom is the list of "credible" sources curated. I wonder if there's some way to come up with content quality metrics for news based on pure reporting of as many of the facts available. Maybe something similar to the stack exchange type system.

You are right. It is very tricky to determine which sources are credible. The National Enquirer broke the John Edwards love child story, despite not being a credible source. And on the other hand we see credible news sources distort the truth to fit the narrative every day. However, the first stage is create systems that let us add news events and reporting in an objective form in which it can be assessed (we have done this already), and then to work on systems that allow us to assess their validity (work in progress). I think something like stack exchange can work, and it will be interesting to experiment to see what works.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#156

Facebook is scary. It ought to be heavily regulated or nationalised entirely. The side effects it has had on society are catastrophic. Once FB gets a monopoly on news, it'll be able to control everyone.

>The side effects it has had on society are catastrophic. >It out to be nationalized entirely. You don't think those two things are at odds with each other? Why do you think the federal government will be any more trustyworthy than Mark Zuckerberg? Not to mention that then it will have no incentive to improve or make a profit.

The government has no financial incentive to turn a profit - All the proceeds would go to back to government projects or be wasted on bureaucracy. Nobody who works for government at any point in the chain could benefit financially from this; that is why the government is far more trustworthy than Mark Zuckerberg and his executive friends.

The idea that a few wealthy FB shareholders can profit from using other people's data to manipulate those people's behaviour illustrates the problem very clearly.

What's worse is that even if you are not susceptible to FB's targeted advertising directly, FB will trick your friends and family into a particular behaviour pattern and then force you to follow suite.

It's just like when FB was in its early growth stages; even people who resisted joining FB initially gave in once all their friends had joined up... People would get offended if you didn't add them as friends on Facebook. It's the same principle at play here except it's around lifestyle and consumerism.

I actually think that this "don't trust the government" propaganda was masterminded by tech companies (on the back of the Edward Snowden drama) to help their own corporate agendas.

50 years ago, it would never have even occurred to anyone that a profit-making entity could be more trustworthy than the government because it makes absolutely no sense.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if I can link to wikileaks here but some of the emails showed collusion with the DNC in general and with the Clinton campaign in particular during the primaries. For an example, see the emails about the debate question leaked to the Clinton campaign for the primary debate in Flint, MI (although this was by someone, I think, hired by CNN who was later hired to head the DNC). https://www.washingtonpost.com…

Those very narrow allegations about one incident within the DNC are not the same as the entire corporate media colluding in Clinton's favor. I'm not happy about what the DNC did but it's not clear that swayed the outcome from an inevitable Bernie victory or that the DNC was part of a conspiracy with the media.

If you've performed investigatory work before, you'd know that having a specific incident memorialized in text is often only the visible iceberg of non-compliance.

Most agents that are skirting the rules have some notion that they shouldn't be overtly recording their misdeeds. In other words, where there's smoke, there's often fire.

The 'one incident' wasn't just smoke, though. It was a full blown conflict-of-interest fire in and of itself.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#158
post #18

Crowd-sourcing news quality does not work. There's no ground truth. Google News is suffering from this. I noted on Wikipedia today, in a discussion of reliable sources, that I had searched for info about a Wikipedia topic with Google news search, with terrible results. The top three results were Algemeiner (Jewish), Breitbart News (alt-right), and Mondoweiss ("progressive and anti-Zionist"). This is pathetic.

I assume they were ranked by views or CTR, which is perfectly normal given the current circumstances. How else can Google News rank them? Follow some news media objectivity ranking on imgur? Hire tons of unbiased people to verify the integrity of all news before adding them into the index? I'm not playing devil's advocate here but given an uninformed electorate, some form of authoritative truth by either a independen…

There was an effort at Google last year to measure site objectivity. I met the woman running it when she gave a talk in EE380 at Stanford. They have a a database of hard facts, and they're trying to check sites to see if they contradict them. This reduces the site's credibility metric. This was aimed more at medical promotion than politics. The technology was still R&D back then, not production.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those very narrow allegations about one incident within the DNC are not the same as the entire corporate media colluding in Clinton's favor. I'm not happy about what the DNC did but it's not clear that swayed the outcome from an inevitable Bernie victory or that the DNC was part of a conspiracy with the media.

The emails also showed that both the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC reached out to highly-placed journalists (Ezra Klein, some others) to prop up Trump, Carson and Cruz as GOP candidates because there was a consensus that they would be "pushovers." Donald Trump received an exorbitant amount of media coverage for free throughout the campaign cycle.

I would love to see a source. I can't seem to find anything that reflects this. Campaigns reach out to journalists constantly, every day, to try and influence their thinking. That's called discourse, and I'd hate to imagine what campaigns would be like if reporters couldn't talk to campaign staff. All I can find doing a quick search about Klein is that he was seen as someone interested in holding other journalists accountable, which means... nothing? Of course people in campaigns are going to be working on identifying who to speak with about various subjects based on who they think might agree with them. Klein is the extremely well respected founder of vox.com and certainly did not "prop up Trump, Carson and Cruz" to my knowledge. If anything, vox.com was substantially less Trump-obsessed and criticized the broader media coverage of Trump. If there were a credible source about a media conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton I'd be very grateful to see it. But I haven't seen it yet.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#160
Since much of the discussion here is revolving around what journalism is or isn't or when its heyday was, or what its economic foundations were, I thought I'd share some of the research I've been making into the history and background.

The term "journalism" itself dates from 1821. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=journalism

The US mass newspaper industry dates from the mid-1800s. Yes, there were earlier instances of things called "newspapers", and some advertisements, and some magazines, and other means of distributing news. But none of these really jive with our current use of the terms.

Specific advances in economics and technology in particular drove the change. From the absolutely fascinating (and, warning: massive time-sink) History of Information:

Economic & Technological Advances Spur the Development of Newspapers in the U.S. (Circa 1800 – 1840)

http://historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=4792

Dates and qualifications are numerous and various, and there's plenty of room for argument. But if the discussion is of a daily publication distributed on the events of the day, widely read through the general population, and supported through commercial means, then you require 1) high-speed communications (telegraph, phone, or better), 2) high-speed presses (steam, diesel, or electric drive), 3) iron or steel framed presses (for speed and durability), 4) distribution (intra- or inter-city, meaning posts or better), 5) manufacturing and distribution capable of supporting advertising-promoted wares, and the real biggie, 6) general literacy within the population.

None of these existed prior to 1800. Generally, full flourishing didn't occur until roughly 1880, though the pieces were falling in place before then.

For much of the 19th century, newspapers were largely party-run, not-for-profit. Prior to 1800, newspapers as we know them really didn't exist. Pamphlets were the typical mechanism through about 1500. Before that, "mass media" usually meant "the Church", in Europe.

Hamilton Holt, a magazine publisher himself, gave a view of the commercial periodicals business in a 1909 lecture at the University of California, "Commercialism and Journalism". He leads with a statistical account of the growth of the publishing industry from 1850 to 1905, in revenues, circulation, publications, and more. Much of the piece looks at the influence of advertising-driven interests on what is covered in publications.

https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holtuoft

From Robert J. Gordon's The Rise and Fall of American Growth, an interesting statistic: the fall in newspaper subscriptions, measured in terms of subscriptions per household, has fallen at a nearly constant rate since the 1950s. The decline in newspaper journalism is a very long-term secular trend.

I'd also strongly recommend David Simon's "The Audacity of Despair", a 70 minute lecture at UC Berkeley. Warning: Simon is not a great speaker, and yes, this is long, but he makes some exceptionally good and cogent points. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nRt46W3k-qw

Another useful resource is "Introduction to Communication Science" by MOOC ICS, a fast-paced but solid introduction to the field of communication science. The segments are brief but well-produced and relevant.

Elizabeth Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change is very strongly recommended on this topic. http://www.worldcat.org/title/printing-press-as-an-agent-of-...

Her paper, "Some Conjectures about the Impace of Printing on Western Society and Thought: A Preliminary Report" (1968) covers much of the ground though in far less detail, it's a good overview to her subsequent life's work. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/240164?jour... (Full text available via http://sci-hub.cc)

The History of Information has a topic covering journalism including to earlier dates. The premise Lauren makes of a commercial practice of journalism prior to 1800 is very poorly supported. There's some argument which can be tenuously made to claims of "newspapers" in the 1700s or 1600s, but they're a long cry from what we see today, and were not generally read.

http://historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?category=News+M...

Post reply on HN