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

201–210 of 233 posts

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

#201

Post by CivBase »

slg wrote: post #189
CivBase wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 c…

>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. This specifically is a great jumping off point to highlight why this is less of a problem in journalism. In politics, the person accepting the money is the same one who is acting. The politician shows up the oil industry…

That is an excellent point. I wasn't aware there was a distinct separation like that. If a news outlet can demonstrate that their publishing arm is organizationally unaffected by influence from their business arm, that would alleviate a lot of my concern about the ad revenue model. I do think it will fall on the organizations themselves to demonstrate and advertise that separation, though. If they can't/won't do that, I don't have much sympathy for any loss of reputation which comes from deals like this.

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

#202

Post by wolverine876 »

tomjen3 wrote: post #154
slg wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

What news source are you referring to? That doesn't describe most publications, online or offline, such as the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, or the Washington Monthly, where the OP article is published. It doesn't describe many local publications I know of.

Certainly there are some publications that fit the description, but we have many, many alternatives.

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

#203

Post by graeme »

lolinder wrote: post #190
_rpd wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the social media giant has been funneling money to America’s biggest news organizations—and hanging the rest of the press out to dry. The complaint here doesn't seem to be that Facebook is handing out money, but rather that not everyone is getting a cut.

Which likewise suggests that the money's purpose is to avoid another Australia. If the large players are all appeased, the small ones stand little chance of influencing Congress on their own.

And further articles like this serve the purpose of requesting broader payoffs.

Nowhere does the article question why the media gets money for nothing. The article assumes it is the media’s right and the money should be increased and more widely distributed.

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

#204

Post by wolverine876 »

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…

I would pay for high-integrity tech journalism, and I'm surprised that many more don't do the same. Many of our businesses depend on that information.

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

#205

Post by wolverine876 »

reedjosh wrote: post #81
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.

Move to purely user funded media. One of my favorite yet least controversial is: https://congressionaldish.com/ But it's not hard to find user funded media for all manner of topics. Edit: Also https://reader.substack.com/inbox

Then the publication has to please its readers, not telling them news they don't want to hear. Imagine a user-funded source publishing negative news about the GameStop mob.

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

#206

Post by minimuffins »

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…

These discussions often miss the point and get bogged down in trying to prove or disprove individual instances of bias or censorship.

The problem for me is prior to all of that.

If the New York Times (say) lacks financial independence, then it will always be structurally indebted to whoever foots the bill. It's just a matter of fact built into the nature of the relationship between the two entities.

Facebook executives may not have established the relationship simply to "buy off" the Times. I imagine most of them have a real commitment to "fixing the news" in their hearts. But it doesn't matter.

If news agencies depend on organizations outside of themselves for the basic necessities of their existence and reproduction, then they aren't independent. They are dependent on those organizations, by definition. What they can report on now has conditions and limits. I want to emphasize that this is a restriction on what it is *possible* to report on. It might not ever produce a distinction that you could easily measure. This is a different, and worse, problem than Facebook purchasing some flattering reporting. Facebook now (obscurely, tacitly) sets the structural conditions (without having to explicitly state any rules or appear to be a bad guy in any way).

It's not hard to think of an example of reporting which could become impossible under these conditions. Imagine if the Times, due to some public outcry, or for whatever reason, took a major rhetorical turn toward combating digital surveillance, just like they did in the last year with racism and issues of cultural morality. A sudden "moral clarity" emerged around topics that the paper used to try to be neutral about.

Whether you like those developments or not, I imagine most people will agree that the employees of the New York Times, not executives at Facebook, or anybody else, should decide the course of the Times' reporting. An existential financial dependence will of course condition all reporting on the maintenance of that dependence.

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

#207

Post by ironmagma »

whimsicalism wrote: post #191
ironmagma wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tech blogs are about as independent as news sources get, so no, they are very much expected to act that way.

? In what world? Tech blogs seem to have the most obvious industry ties of most media

Of course they're obvious -- that's good. With larger players, you have no idea who they're being paid by (as shown, for instance, in the crux of this article). In contrast, with "new media" (e.g. a podcast), I can be reasonably confident they are only being paid by a few key sponsors, and that's public knowledge on account of them having purchased ad space.

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

#208

Post by olivermarks »

kgog wrote: post #164
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

i support that! Also this https://danafblankenhorn.substack.com/p/pay-per-day

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

#209

Post by PoignardAzur »

graeme wrote: post #163

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 AN…

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;

But we've proved it again and again,

That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld

You never get rid of the Dane.

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

#210

Post by tsimionescu »

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.

Sure, reporters don't like it, but it doesn't matter, because editors decide what ultimately gets printed.
Post reply on HN