Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook to Invest $300m in Supporting Local News

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 100 posts

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

#41

Post by dqpb »

zoul wrote: 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…

Thank you for explaining the incentive behind the media-blitz against Facebook.

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

#43

Post by freehunter »

claudiulodro wrote: post #3

Interesting timing, the day after Newspack was announced.[1] I know which one I'm going to support, but it's going to be tough to take on a $300mm commitment with a $3mm commitment. 1. https://en.blog.wordpress.com/2019/01/14/newspack-by-wordpre...

Reading about Newspack, I'm wondering what their definition of "small news organization" is... considering after the "development period", they'll start charging sites $1000-$2000 PER MONTH. Again I'm not sure on their definition of "small" but as someone who runs a small news organization and is active in groups involving small news organizations, I know a lot of small news organizations would love to make enough money that $1000/mo for web hosting would be worth it.

Neither of the pages they link to in this announcement actually states what makes this worth $1000/mo rather than the $25/mo Wordpress normally charges. In fact I don't see literally anything describing what you get with Newspack at all.

>we’re seeing a need for an inexpensive platform

Is $1000/mo "inexpensive" compared to their normal price of $25/mo? I'm extremely interested in understanding what this actually is, but I just read 5 articles from various sites and none of them actually say what Wordpress is offering that's worth $1000-$2000 PER MONTH.

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

#44

Post by CodeSheikh »

Or Facebook to Invest $300m in Influencing Local News.

Facebook newsfeed model inherently works against local news and small guys (unless some certain piece goes viral once in a while). Local news outlet based out of some small locality does not have a huge follower base that gets Facebook's attention. This is just another PR stunt by Facebook.

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

#45

Post by roseburg »

The old local news model is dying because it's top heavy and has enormous overhead. Local news isn't dying though, and is as valuable as ever. It's just in the process of completely changing.

One person can now do more with 1/1000th the budget of a local Newspaper with the barrier to entry being hard work, good writing skills, social media savvy and a love of the place they are covering.

More money to these organizations will just keep them on life support longer. Now if they changed their model 100% that would be a completely different story.

The future of journalism will be a lot of small teams (1-4) of writers/journalists/personalities running their own show in their city or state.

The financial woes of the old news industry is a symptom. A change is needed.

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

#46

Post by darawk »

monkeynotes wrote: post #25

> 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…

> 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'.

There are multiple meanings of the word 'want'. There is 'want' in the sense of what people will click on, which we have learned is not always good. But that doesn't mean that what people say that they want is similarly toxic.

For instance, if you ask me what i'd like to have for lunch today, i'll say "a nice healthy salad". But if you put a delicious burrito in front of me, I will eat that burrito instead. Does that mean I didn't want the salad? No. It means that preference is not a unitary thing. Assuming that Facebook investigated the question of "what do our users want" with this nuanced understanding of preference, and interrogated their users "higher wants" (articulated preference) rather than their "lower wants" (revealed preference), I think that line is ok.

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

#47

Post by monkeynotes »

barkingcat wrote: post #37
monkeynotes wrote: post #25

> 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 pu…

I think we all know the discussions going on at FB HQ about 'what people want to see' are far, far removed from the journalistic decisions that get made in a quality news room.

Throwing in Murdoch and Fox News isn't helping your argument either. I'd put Murdoch up there as one of the key people who have actively sought to abuse journalism for political favour and personal gain. I just don't see how that is right.

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

#48

Post by monkeynotes »

dqpb wrote: post #39
monkeynotes wrote: post #25

> 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?

Well, currently ad dollars.

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

#49

Post by steve-benjamins »

freehunter wrote: post #35
zoul wrote: 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…

That’s interesting- would you be willing to share your publication? I’d love to check it out.

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

#50

Post by porpoisely »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #30
porpoisely wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pro Publica was created by billionaire bankers a little more than 10 years ago. They aren't in need of any funding. Also, it's a bit of a stretch to say that pro publica is the standard of journalism or accountability. Pro Publica is an advocacy institution.

You may not intend it, but when you write, "created by billionaire bankers" it doesn't add to the conversation much (specific behavior influenced by that funding would be more useful, if it exists) and is recalls some kind of unpalatable language/imagery used by far right groups - which I'm definitely not accusing you of, to be clear. One thing you may not know is that they publish their full financials, in accordanc…

We were discussing whether facebook should fund pro publica like they are supporting struggling local news companies. Since pro publica is supported by billionaire bankers, they aren't struggling for money and if they need it, they can tap the foundation that the billionaire bankers set up for them. Frankly, I don't think facebook should be supporting either, but given the choice between struggling local news and pro publica, I think struggling local news is the proper choice. Also, I'm not accusing you of being a far leftist to be clear, but it's an unpalatable tactic used by the far left to label everything as being far right and it really doesn't add much to the conversation. Also, if a company is financially conservative, they wouldn't be in need of additionally funding. That's the central idea of financial conservatism, the budget drives your needs rather than your needs driving the budget.
Post reply on HN