I'm not sure how I feel about ladbible leading breitbart.
Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
111–120 of 142 posts
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#112Fox News dominates ratings on TV so its not surprising they'd be #1 - there's also the fact this is "engagements" and not click-throughs. I'd wager good 15% of these are probably people clicking "Angry" not actually engaging. If you look at "content with the most shares" not surprisingly Reuters and Patch tops the list. OP's headline presumes any algorithm should achieve left/right balance - this is just impossible.…
"* New York Times: Your number of free articles is 0
* Wall Street Journal: Subscription needed
* Bloomberg: See this article for $1
* Fox News: Completely free
* Breitbart: Completely free"
But BBC, Huffpo, CNN, NBC/MSNBC et. al. are free, and they actually dominate the list, i.e. those entities and a few others add up to something considerably bigger than Fox. Or Fox + the Mail + Breitbart, for the most part.
I think the headline was unnecessarily biased to the extent it doesn't paint the picture we see presented in the actual data, which is actually interesting and not quite so black and white.
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'd wager good 15% of these are probably people clicking "Angry" not actually engaging. Only 15%? I'd guess it's way, way more. Like 90%. News today is primarily headline-driven. You don't have to sit down and watch the evening newscast anymore, you can just scroll through Facebook and see headlines and comments, which almost always drop context and nuance in a way that's engineered to make people upset. In a way, i…
> There's simply no professional awareness of the unbelievably damaging power of headlines Some would say this is by design and not just on the part of newsmakers but actual politicians on both sides of the spectrum. For the system to work as efficiently as it does a bimodal distribution is probably the best way to achieve that. Every one may be better off at the end thinking both they have a voice, someone taking ca…
"For the system to work as efficiently as it does"
I doubt the efficiency of this system.
I suggest that the incentives are mostly politically oriented, in the sense that editorial staff truly feel aligned with something they feel important to them, in addition to the 'money' incentive, which is severe in the world of news; they are always going out of business, and in a constant fight for ratings / viewers. There's a very serious and existential push to 'make money or die'.
Both of those elements combine to create a market orientation. If you consider news to be simply a product like any other, then you have 'customers' within specific 'demographics' and the editorialists to be 'product managers' with a 'P&L' ... when then they are incented to hustle the kind of information that fires those customers up and gets them clicking.
Taking a completely culturally secular view, one could argue the papers are just carving out their customer segments, just as any competing brands would.
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, Rachel Maddow is probably the best example on air of non-fear-based programming. She usually spends the first 10 or so minutes of her show putting the forthcoming topic in historical context, and then proceeds with a rational, calm, and thoughtful examination of the topic. This oftentimes involves verbatim reading of court transcripts for 20 minutes. The majority of her show is a fixed camera on her with a stat…
Not sure why you’re being downvoted.
If you don't read the second paragraph, it seems 100% obviously a case of sarcasm. For some reason, sarcasm goes over badly on HackerNews. Given the second paragraph though, and prior post history... I think it was serious. OMG.
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps you can enlighten me on other reasons that people would react with an angry emoji, aside from the two I described. Also, I’m not interpreting everything with respect to two categories — I'm interpreting single study this way.
There may be two broad motivations for leaving an angry emoji; either they are angry at the article or the article made them angry. However categorizing these two groups as "liberal" or "their base" isn't justified. It may be the case that somebody, perhaps a conservative, is angry at Fox News for a particular spin or editorialization but generally likes other Fox News articles. It may also be the case that somebody…
I completely agree that the angry emoji is ambiguous, and I actually commented about this on FB when they first released it. I guess my larger point is that the fact that Fox News is at the top of the list for angry emoji could mean various things. Given the high regard I have for Nieman Lab, I was surprised that they didn't even attempt to parse this, or discuss how it is an ambiguous result.
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#116I've created a news aggregator based on Wikipedia references. While this might be comparing apples to oranges, here's the list of the most cited websites by Wikipedia: https://cited.news/domains It's still a bit buggy, so the "blank" domain is ranked #1, followed by NY Times, BBC and The Guardian. Fox News is ranked at #93 at that list: https://cited.news/domains/show/www.foxnews.com/citations
Wikipedia itself is quite biased. Some domains are even banned despite providing real news with original reporting.
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#117I've created a news aggregator based on Wikipedia references. While this might be comparing apples to oranges, here's the list of the most cited websites by Wikipedia: https://cited.news/domains It's still a bit buggy, so the "blank" domain is ranked #1, followed by NY Times, BBC and The Guardian. Fox News is ranked at #93 at that list: https://cited.news/domains/show/www.foxnews.com/citations
Wikipedia itself is quite biased. Some domains are even banned despite providing real news with original reporting.
Know where to find that list? I googled around and couldn't get it.
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#118If the top sites were nytimes, new yorker and bbc you would be very happy right? ;)
Those three are not the “left-wing equivalent” of Fox. See, for example, the media bias chart: https://www.adfontesmedia.com Left equivalents of Fox are Daily Kos et al.
It looks like that chart just assumes that the median news is neutral. This is not a valid assumption. What is "Neutral" anyway? When news sources are compared against public opinion in the USA, Fox is just a tiny bit left of center now. This should make it obvious why Fox is the most popular news channel. If Fox were really "Hyper-Partisan Right" bordering on "Most Extreme Right", then it couldn't possibly be as popular as it is.
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#119Fox News dominates ratings on TV so its not surprising they'd be #1 - there's also the fact this is "engagements" and not click-throughs. I'd wager good 15% of these are probably people clicking "Angry" not actually engaging. If you look at "content with the most shares" not surprisingly Reuters and Patch tops the list. OP's headline presumes any algorithm should achieve left/right balance - this is just impossible.…
What about NPR? BBC? Those are free and fairly unbiased.
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#120Fox News dominates ratings on TV so its not surprising they'd be #1 - there's also the fact this is "engagements" and not click-throughs. I'd wager good 15% of these are probably people clicking "Angry" not actually engaging. If you look at "content with the most shares" not surprisingly Reuters and Patch tops the list. OP's headline presumes any algorithm should achieve left/right balance - this is just impossible.…
So people tell me Breitbart is a propaganda machine financed by political manipulators, but Fox is certainly run like a business. What is Fox doing to make their content free that NYT and WSJ can't t?
News is basically a loss leader for Fox. Their actual business purpose is something else entirely.
If I said what that was, it would appear that I was trying to start a political flame war on HN, so I won't. But most people here know what it is anyway.
Eventually, Bezos, Slim, and the Sulzbergers will have to decide what business they're in, just as Murdoch already has. Paywalls are not going to play a role in that business, and I frankly don't understand why they're bothering with them now.