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

Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

washingtonmonthly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 233 posts

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#151

Post by WORMS_EAT_WORMS »

arrosenberg wrote: post #126
WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point. But, what do you really want right now, blood ? Say we disappeared Facebook off the planet, do you really think — boom! — problem solved?

I obviously don't subscribe to a straw man position. My comment was about systems exploiting people, because it's a system that needs to be fixed. Facebook is the 800 pound gorilla protecting the system from change.

Well, first of all I agree. Though I think it's more of a line of 800 pound gorillas knocking at your door. It's not going away because "we stopped Facebook". For example, I actually think Twitter influences the system in much worst ways. It's just easier to look the other way with those and is trendy to hate on Facebook because techy SV people don't use it anymore.

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#152

Post by lotsofpulp »

corpMaverick wrote: post #135
lotsofpulp wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would also like everything to be cheaper. With password managers, it’s not that much work to visit multiple websites.

> I would also like everything to be cheaper. The point is that with "Netfilx for news" you increase the number of people paying. Thus decreasing cost for the individuals. > With password managers, it’s not that much work to visit multiple websites. It is not just about managing logins. You also have to manage payments. And make the decisions about what you want to read months in advance. People hate making decisions…

I do not think that is possible due to the ease of copy pasting journalism. Journalists and their companies are also mainly selling their reputation, and it makes no sense to muddy it with others.

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#153

Post by lukifer »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #42
afavour wrote: post #32

> There’s no evidence that the deal directly affects coverage in either the news or editorial departments. Before the Facebook News deal, the Times famously published an op-ed titled “It’s Time to Break Up Facebook,” by Chris Hughes, a cofounder of Facebook turned critic. And since the deal, columns from Tim Wu and Kara Swisher, among others, have been similarly critical. In December, the editorial board welcomed a l…

Tech blogs are regularly bribed for good coverage, and tech companies are known for doing it. Nobody bloody cares about integrity of journalism. The Verge has historically been very favorable to Apple and Google. Why? They get exclusive interviews with Google and Apple executives. An interview with Sundar Pichai is worth millions in ad revenue, and if a blog is too critical of a company, they won't get interviews. Of…

> Nobody bloody cares about integrity of journalism.

To offer a bit more nuance: consumers care about enough integrity; and powerful institutions (public or private), who stand to win or lose based on press narratives, care about enough "fairness" to their own perspectives (and interests).

Looking purely at realpolitik incentives, journalistic institutions can straddle that line and hit well over 50% on both fronts. Not to pick on the guy, but my poster child for this phenomenon is Daring Fireball's John Gruber: he's built a longstanding personal brand of integrity, covering Apple-centric tech for 20 years, and is frequently critical of the company and its products. And yet, he's frequently given preferential treatment by the company and its executives, because that same history has also signaled a (heartfelt) bias to being sympathetic to Apple's values and motives, meaning execs have a high confidence that reviews will be fair, interviews will be free of the scariest "gotcha" questions, etc.

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#154

Post by tomjen3 »

slg wrote: post #112
afavour wrote: post #32

> There’s no evidence that the deal directly affects coverage in either the news or editorial departments. Before the Facebook News deal, the Times famously published an op-ed titled “It’s Time to Break Up Facebook,” by Chris Hughes, a cofounder of Facebook turned critic. And since the deal, columns from Tim Wu and Kara Swisher, among others, have been similarly critical. In December, the editorial board welcomed a l…

>The core conflict here isn't new, surely. Newspapers have taken advertising money from news-making companies since time immaterial. And if you can find a viable alternative to this, your company will be worth hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars[1]. The internet has killed the classifieds business and commoditized news to the point that most people won't pay for it. Accepting advertising from potentially…

I have paid for news, even going so far as to buy a printed newspaper, but frankly most of it is worthless: crime reports that doesn't matter, a bunch of opinions by people, etc.

Online most are just reprinting Reuters.

I would pay for insight that I can use and exclusive (relevant) news, sadly investigative journalism is too expensive.

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#155

Post by passivate »

1cvmask wrote: post #104
neonological wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anybody know of a good news source that doesn’t fall into this trap? I hear the economist is pretty good.

The Economist has a history of lies and falsehoods by omission when it comes to foreign policy and international coverage. Anywhere from their Bolivia, Venezuela, Libya, Iraq, Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela, Syria, Chile (the editor openly boasted of delivering the coup) and so much more. They are often a bit more nuanced compared to coup and regime change lovers like Fox, Washington Post, and the NY. Times.

Can you explain more about the 'history of lies and falsehoods by omission'? I am not familiar with the specific articles about the countries you listed. Can you give a few examples? Ideally if we could compare/contrast articles with other outlets you think are more credible that would probably help!

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#156

Post by hsitz »

afavour wrote: post #32

> There’s no evidence that the deal directly affects coverage in either the news or editorial departments. Before the Facebook News deal, the Times famously published an op-ed titled “It’s Time to Break Up Facebook,” by Chris Hughes, a cofounder of Facebook turned critic. And since the deal, columns from Tim Wu and Kara Swisher, among others, have been similarly critical. In December, the editorial board welcomed a l…

> It's kind of a throwaway passage in the article but it feels like a crucial point. Maybe I'm wrong but "buying off" to me strongly suggests something along the lines of a bribe. We're going to give you this cash, nudge nudge, wink wink, maybe that negative stuff you print about us goes away. My question is: is this actually happening?

My question is: Do you really need to ask that? Human nature is human nature; there's little doubt that it's happening to some extent. Virtually impossible that it's not happening at all.

The problem to me seems quite similar to campaign contributions in politics. Yes, it's indirect, and all parties can say it's innocent, no strings attached, the elected representative is not "required" to do anything. Those are words that help people ignore the reality of human nature. Money is influence.

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#157

Post by tomjen3 »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #26
tediousdemise wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not too long ago, Facebook took out a full page ad against Apple to gaslight consumers that anti-tracking was harming small business. This company is like a perforated colon that keeps leaking feces into the collective body of society. Pretty soon we'll go into septic shock.

Anti-tracking is harmful to all businesses who advertise, is it not?

Tracking is oversold. If you have a gardening blog just offer ads for people who like to garden, no tracking necessary.

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#158

Post by CivBase »

slg wrote: post #146
CivBase wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've re-read your post a few times and I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but it keeps reading to me like "bad things have become the normal and people should stop pointing it out". Whether or not there is a better solution, I think there are clearly dangers inherent to monetizing news with ad revenue and I think there is value in keeping a careful eye on them.

Yes, I agree that there are dangers. However is there any evidence of the dangers being a reality in this instance? The article directly says there is no evidence. If there is no evidence, why is this story specifically about the NYT and Facebook? There is also danger involved in shaming the NYT for accepting ad money and in turn having them cut coverage in response to decreased revenue. There are plenty of examples…

> However is there any evidence of the dangers being a reality in this instance?

Are we specifically talking about a news organization softening its coverage on a sponsor? There aren't any examples which spring directly to mind, but there are countless examples of other organizations doing this. Politicians being bought-out by businesses and lobbyists is nothing new. Platforms like YouTube have crafted and modified content policies specifically to appeal to their sponsors.

News organizations benefit from maintaining an appearance of trustworthiness. If they modified their content for the benefit of a sponsor, they would obviously try to be very discrete about it. Is it a stretch to imagine it has or could easily happen? Especially if people stop worrying out it? Other than reputation, is there anything else to counteract that motivation?

> If there is no evidence, why is this story specifically about the NYT and Facebook?

As for the NYT/Facebook thing in particular, it doesn't strike me as being inherently worse than any other sponsorship deal. I'm not worried about it in particular so much as I am generally concerned with how dependent news is on ad revenue in general. I'm not vouching for the credibility of this story, but I'm worried that your comment is too dismissive of the broader subject.

> There is also danger involved in shaming the NYT for accepting ad money and in turn having them cut coverage in response to decreased revenue. There are plenty of examples of that.

I don't know about this. I think whenever an organization is dependent on another for revenue, they risk appearing less impartial towards that organization. I see HN comments accusing Mozilla of appearing to be less impartial towards Google because of their relationship all the time, despite Mozilla directly competing with and regularly speaking out against Google.

News outlets benefit from an appearance of impartiality and revenue partnership they form with a third-party comes with a risk of damaging that appearance. It's up to the NYT to convince readers they can be trusted with the partnerships they've made. Frankly, I think they've probably built up enough of a reputation that this particular deal wont hurt them much, if not benefit them.

> I am more concerned with the danger we have evidence of rather than the one we don't.

I'm also more concerned with the dangers we have. That doesn't mean I can't keep an eye out for the dangers which could be. Even if this particular danger hasn't yet manifested, there is clear motivation for it and precedent for it in other markets.

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#159

Post by olivermarks »

I think we need new laws to make public funding of the media by interests who will benefit from a blind eye or active promotion of their goals much more visible.

NPR is now heavily compromised by endless donations from foundations but still implies its products are funded 'by people like you'. At least they say 'made possible by a grant from the Warbucks Oligarch foundation' along with a cute little advertising line about philanthropy, making the world a better place etc etc.

We need a lot more transparency. The Gates Foundation, which significantly funds the BBC, Guardian, NPR, and similar situations such as GMO bigPharma messaging, need to be made to publicly and prominently declare their interests and their agendas declared.

'Access' media is a huge problem because it purports to be unbiased when in actuality it is heavily agenda driven. In the case of Facebook & the NYT this is a very serious situation that further undermines what little is left of the NYT's credibility.

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#160

Post by LegitShady »

Spivak wrote: post #59
ErikVandeWater wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-tracking is harmful to all businesses who advertise, is it not?

It absolutely is. I detest Facebook's level of tracking and invasion of people's privacy but I'll be damned if it doesn't enable businesses of any size to market with the same power previously reserved for supermassive brands for pennies. I feel like there's basically no allowable nuance in this discussion because holding any opinion than "tracking is 100% bad with literally no upsides for anyone other than ad networ…

I think its pretty clear that no matter the take on tracking, facebook is a bad actor with previous scandals including knowingly took money from children, experimenting on people's feed, did large scale psychological experiments on their own users without consent, selling/giving access to user data to political firms, collecting email contact data without consent, etc etc. And those are only just what I remember off the top of my head.

Even if you were ok with tracking facebook is not the people I'd trust to do it ethically.

Post reply on HN