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

161–170 of 233 posts

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

#161

Post by xxpor »

op03 wrote: post #137
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 AP's NORC Center for Public Affairs Research recent report on Trust in American Media shows no one gives a fig what the NYT thinks, especially what its critical of - https://apnorc.org/projects/a-new-way-of-looking-at-trust-in...

The public's perception isn't what's important. It's what people in DC think. And they read the NYT op-ed page.

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

#162

Post by kgog »

donohoe wrote: post #98
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 news/reporting side of the organization and the Opinion group are very very separate. It's important to look at the news gathering side. Reporters don't take to being told to 'go easy on this group cos we have business ties' - that usually provides the opposite response.

This x1000.

Although on HN, the core message is "media bad, cos good" so I doubt that people will want to understand how media orgs actually work.

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

#163

Post by graeme »

It is worth remembering the Australia fiasco. The Australian media led by Murdoch basically shook down Facebook until they came to am agreement to give the media kickbacks. Then Australia agreed not to apply its law.

The European media has also demanded payments, even though the value flows from sending traffic to news sites and not the other way around.

The media seems to believe it is entitled to be send traffic AND to be paid for it. Common story all over the world.

So, to reduce those demands in America, Facebook pays kickbacks to the biggest media orgs.

Here, the media publication is presenting it as a grant for favourable coverage. But the far more likely explanation is Facebook knows the media will shake it down for more money unless it gives them a payoff.

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

#164

Post by kgog »

olivermarks wrote: post #159

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…

Might it be time to support LJSA?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7640

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

#165

Post by kgog »

nova22033 wrote: post #45
notlukesky wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taylor Lorenz attended a 90 thousand a year high school. Is that not elitist? https://twitter.com/comfortablysmug/status/13696539131216773...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elitist one who is an adherent of elitism : one whose attitudes and beliefs are biased in favor of a socially elite class of people I don't care much for her coverage but she's attacking a company whose CEO is worth a lot of money. Hard to say any of the people being criticized isn't part of the elite

Exactly. I love Lorenz's work (flawed as it may be[0]) in dismantling or at the very least shining a light on the hypocrisy and double-standards of the SV elites[1].

[0] I dare anyone to point me to a flawless employee regardless of their employer or job title.

[1] Just google her name you'll find plenty of coverage of (predominately) white, old VC dudes unleashing their followers on her.

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

#166

Post by screye »

WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote: post #44

Let us be real, folks: - You are reading this comment. - You are likely highly or fairly paid. - You don’t pay for your news (to a partisan substack doesn’t count) Edit: Added likely to comment. Icing on the cake is if you consume almost all your news through Twitter / social media. Maybe stop clicking and reacting and instead stop and reflect your role in all this? Cold hard truth? We caused this problem, Facebook i…

> to a partisan substack doesn’t count

Ouch, that hurts. But, there really isn't any difference between secondary-source news outlets and a substack. The substack just allows me to know exactly what I'm getting. In a world where there is no such thing as neural or fair, the most we can do is promote those that are transparent and thoughtful.

> You don’t pay for your news

I do pay good journalistic outlets. ThePrint in India charges me $10 a month, but they routinely produce good quality Indian news. They also openly declare a 'economically liberal, socially liberal' for their editorials and it is rare to find that kind of openness.

I would've paid for the Economist if I read it more often. I would've had an opinion on WSJ if I read it at all. Reuters has deteriorated a bit, but they provide first sources which is indispensable for the entire industry. But those 3 would be the closest mainstream new outlets that I'd consider paying for.

With how blatantly partisan NYT, WaPo, Guardian and the likes have become, it is hard to justify giving them a single cent of my hard earned money. Especially when they hide behind a veneer of fairness, prestige and even-handedness.

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

#167

Post by kgog »

afavour wrote: post #43
notlukesky wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taylor Lorenz attended a 90 thousand a year high school. Is that not elitist? https://twitter.com/comfortablysmug/status/13696539131216773...

Why not discuss the actual coverage rather than attack the journalist?

Because that's not what HN (and its ideological libertarian crowd) does.

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

#168

Post by grawprog »

So, Facebook is allowed to not only determine what is 'true' and 'untrue', on their platform, thereby giving certain news agencies essential monopolies on their platform and they're giving money to these organizations.

Explain to me how Facebook is not considered a publisher again?

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

#169

Post by pessimizer »

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…

> Vilifying it whenever it happens is potentially dangerous and we should really wait to level these accusations until there is actual evidence of wrongdoing.

Everything makes sense except for this. The fact that a business model being broken has caused standards to slip isn't a reason not to point out slipped standards.

Also, the fallacy that there will always be some physical evidence of corruption has to die. Every single business or agency I have ever worked for has formal and informal policies about what can be spoken about in media that has a retention policy, especially if they were liable to FOIA requests. The only way you get evidence of that stuff is through making secret recordings (which is why people don't talk on the phone about this stuff either.)

It's the appearance of corruption that should be penalized, not the ephemeral evidence of it.

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

#170

Post by [deleted] »

nova22033 wrote: post #45
notlukesky wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taylor Lorenz attended a 90 thousand a year high school. Is that not elitist? https://twitter.com/comfortablysmug/status/13696539131216773...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elitist one who is an adherent of elitism : one whose attitudes and beliefs are biased in favor of a socially elite class of people I don't care much for her coverage but she's attacking a company whose CEO is worth a lot of money. Hard to say any of the people being criticized isn't part of the elite

[deleted]
Post reply on HN