Live data from Hacker News

Facebook to Invest $300m in Supporting Local News

facebook.com

31–40 of 100 posts

Re: Facebook to Invest $300m in Supporting Local News

#31
My favourite story involving Facebook and the news is when Facebook's head of news - Campbell Brown (the former CNN anchor), went down to Australia. She was hired after the 2016 election as a go-between for Facebook and news organizations.

According to a report in "The Australian" she is quoted to have allegedly said "We will help you revitalise journalism... in a few years the ­reverse looks like I’ll be holding your hands with your dying ­business like in a hospice" and "We are not interested in talking to you about your traffic and referrals anymore. That is the old world and there is no going back – Mark wouldn’t agree to this"

Then Facebook denied that this happened.

So to summarize:

- Facebook is accused of not doing enough to combat fake news

- Facebook hires Campbell Brown to be a point person to deal with the fake news situation

- A newspaper reports that Campbell Brown allegedly tried to push them around

- Facebook says this is fake news

Re: Facebook to Invest $300m in Supporting Local News

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The decline in local news likely plays a big part in the decline in American civic life and social capital. That said, $300M isn't nearly enough to even mitigate the damage Facebook does to American civic life simply by virtue of being a data-mining, misinformation spreading behemoth. Their business model is at cross purposes with the ideal of having an informed citizenry. The entire point of marketing and advertisin…

Name me a war the US entered that isn't World War II that wasn't coincident with a misinformation campaign published on dead tree legacy media. The truth is that mass media IS edutainment at best and completely misleading fiction most of the time. You get to pick two: fast, cheap, and good/true. If it is fast and cheap it is fake. If it is cheap and true it will take time to attain. If it is true and fast, it won't b…

National media is the problem there. Anything at that level is a target for misinformation campaigns.

Local newsrooms are too many to thoroughly corrupt as easily as a national (or in the case of FB, international) media system.

I'm not sure your "pick 2 of 3" is valid here. Do you have actual examples to support your hypothesis?

Re: Facebook to Invest $300m in Supporting Local News

#34
post #4

Ah yes the bastion of journalistic quality that is local news...wait...what? FB gets a lot of flak for fake news and then decides to invest in local news? Why not in institutions that set the standard for journalism and bring accountability such as Pro Publica?

Is Pro Publica going to cover your city council meetings or keep your state legislature accountable? What those government bodies do is important, and corruption can hide in them. Local TV news does suck, but local newspapers are vitally important.

Re: Facebook to Invest $300m in Supporting Local News

#35
post #17

As someone who has been running a local newspaper for the last four years in a town of about 11 thousand people, getting money or support from Facebook would feel like someone robbing you and then being so kind as to split the money with you. My trust in them is exactly zero. They have practically monopolized news distribution, helped to destroy the business model of an important social service and now they would lik…

I also run a local news outlet, digital-only though and not print. Facebook is both the reason for our success and also the source of our biggest pain. They almost put us out of business within the last year.

For how they're helping, it's really hard to get people to care about websites. People as a whole just don't care. They don't want to visit your website. So we publish our stories and share them to Facebook. We get about a 10% click through of people who saw the story, which is better than we'd do without publishing to Facebook.

On the other hand, our biggest draw is the event calendar, organizing all of the city and business events into one local calendar. People visit for the events, and then also click on news headlines they find interesting. Up until April 2018, we got this event data from the Facebook events API and linked it all back to Facebook if people wanted more details. A win-win I think. In April 2018, they shut off the events API with zero warning. So these public events from businesses who want people to attend their events, events which are visible by people who are not even logged into Facebook, are now considered private data by Facebook and no longer part of their API.

The big draw of aggregating them is that people see a curated list of good events that are actually near them: in a small town, just clicking Discover on Facebook events shows you mostly stuff from the big cities nearby. It takes a few clicks to get to events actually happening in the small town itself. We still have it, but we have to type it all by hand every week, which leaves less time for writing stories, talking to story leads and city officials and customers, selling ads, you know the actual "local news" part of the business.

Facebook, if you're reading this and want to help local news: turn the public events API back on. A local band playing at my local brewery is not private information, it is the definition of "things that should be shared".

Re: Facebook to Invest $300m in Supporting Local News

#36

> Last year, we worked to better understand what kind of news people want to see on Facebook. This opening line is just all wrong. News isn't about 'what you want to see', writing news to garner clicks is basically another way of saying 'our news reporting is fundamentally biased'. Real journalism isn't entertainment. But, I get it, real journalism doesn't sell, people don't have time to understand world problems, do…

Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with nor endorse Facebook. I actually deleted mine for 6 months before making a new one to keep in touch with friends. But, I will not knock a company for wanting to maximize profits. They want their users to want to use their platform. If I owned a social media, or any product really, I would want to do everything I can to keep them coming back. I feel like as long as it isn't illegal…

There are many compelling arguments that Facebook is addictive. I remember feeling physically ill, as if struck by the flu, the first day I quit facebook.

(You might argue with Milton Friedman, that the free market should be allowed to provide addictive goods. This may well be true, but there's no D.A.R.E for social media; there are also very few non-social media users you might compare with social media users for reference, as you might for potheads and cokeheads.)

Re: Facebook to Invest $300m in Supporting Local News

#37

> Last year, we worked to better understand what kind of news people want to see on Facebook. This opening line is just all wrong. News isn't about 'what you want to see', writing news to garner clicks is basically another way of saying 'our news reporting is fundamentally biased'. Real journalism isn't entertainment. But, I get it, real journalism doesn't sell, people don't have time to understand world problems, do…

"what kind of news people want to see" discussions takes place in news rooms, editing rooms, and journalism schools around the world. There isn't some all-encompassing "journalism" cabal who are only dedicated to reporting all the news that ever happens without bias.

This only exists in the minds of people who've never seen news and reporting get made.

These decisions are made every day by the editors-in-chief and publishers of large multinational news conglomerates, and this ultimately makes these positions very powerful. It's why Rupert Murdoch owns so many news/media properties and why people say the Fox news network is biased.

Re: Facebook to Invest $300m in Supporting Local News

#38

> Last year, we worked to better understand what kind of news people want to see on Facebook. This opening line is just all wrong. News isn't about 'what you want to see', writing news to garner clicks is basically another way of saying 'our news reporting is fundamentally biased'. Real journalism isn't entertainment. But, I get it, real journalism doesn't sell, people don't have time to understand world problems, do…

Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with nor endorse Facebook. I actually deleted mine for 6 months before making a new one to keep in touch with friends. But, I will not knock a company for wanting to maximize profits. They want their users to want to use their platform. If I owned a social media, or any product really, I would want to do everything I can to keep them coming back. I feel like as long as it isn't illegal…

That's exactly what the parent is saying, that few of Facebook's actions have been done with best practices (ethically or morally).

No reason to cheer on a company to profits at the expense of the society that made that company possible and you have to live in, then they have no incentive at all to do the right thing.

Re: Facebook to Invest $300m in Supporting Local News

#39

> Last year, we worked to better understand what kind of news people want to see on Facebook. This opening line is just all wrong. News isn't about 'what you want to see', writing news to garner clicks is basically another way of saying 'our news reporting is fundamentally biased'. Real journalism isn't entertainment. But, I get it, real journalism doesn't sell, people don't have time to understand world problems, do…

So who decides what's news worthy?

Re: Facebook to Invest $300m in Supporting Local News

#40
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name me a war the US entered that isn't World War II that wasn't coincident with a misinformation campaign published on dead tree legacy media. The truth is that mass media IS edutainment at best and completely misleading fiction most of the time. You get to pick two: fast, cheap, and good/true. If it is fast and cheap it is fake. If it is cheap and true it will take time to attain. If it is true and fast, it won't b…

National media is the problem there. Anything at that level is a target for misinformation campaigns. Local newsrooms are too many to thoroughly corrupt as easily as a national (or in the case of FB, international) media system. I'm not sure your "pick 2 of 3" is valid here. Do you have actual examples to support your hypothesis?

It's just an old saying that is basically accurate about any human endeavor that is used to deflate sham projects that can never succeed at their stated ends. E.g. "I'll build a hydroelectric dam in 24 hours that will power the whole state and it will cost $1."

Local news is even more beholden to big local advertisers who dictate coverage. So few people actually care about local political news that even if you threw resources at it, you would not find that many people who cared enough to pay attention to it. C-SPAN's ratings aren't as good as almost any other cable network you can think of, for example, and the same theme is repeated in local news. People care much more about things like real estate, crime, arts&leisure, and fluffy health coverage.

Post reply on HN