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

181–190 of 233 posts

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

#181

Post by andreilys »

WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote: post #83
serial_dev wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, I'm not sure what's your point. But... Why wouldn't a "partisan" substack count? What if I spend around 30 seconds a day on Google News, just to see what the different propaganda machines try to push for today, so it's not something I would like to pay for, but I value and trust some "Substack" journalists and opinion people.

See my other comment. In most cases, you are probably not paying for the reporting of “new” news and instead paying for a filter of existing news. Substack is super great. Just paying for it is not the same as paying for a NYTimes subscription however people would like to spin it.

Substack is super great. Just paying for it is not the same as paying for a NYTimes subscription however people would like to spin it.

You're right, in a lot of cases substack writers can be more transparent about their conflicts of interest and aren't beholden to censors who kill stories that might upset NYT readers or writers.

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

#182

Post by andreilys »

WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote: post #71
ds206 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think substack doesn't count as paying for news?

Substack (to me) is more of a lens you put on to consume the news. Multiple other use cases but most people are paying and trusting someone to filter the noise for them. If they realize it or not.

The same can be said of NYT, WaPo, etc.

most are taking stories that have already broken and adding their own spin on it, often to score points for whatever tribal team they represent

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

#183

Post by WORMS_EAT_WORMS »

andreilys wrote: post #181
WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my other comment. In most cases, you are probably not paying for the reporting of “new” news and instead paying for a filter of existing news. Substack is super great. Just paying for it is not the same as paying for a NYTimes subscription however people would like to spin it.

Substack is super great. Just paying for it is not the same as paying for a NYTimes subscription however people would like to spin it. You're right, in a lot of cases substack writers can be more transparent about their conflicts of interest and aren't beholden to censors who kill stories that might upset NYT readers or writers.

Oof, you missed my point.

I'm not debating that. Just saying it's different.

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

#184

Post by hsitz »

dlp211 wrote: post #171
hsitz wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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; the…

This is why the business side and news side of (quality) news papers have been historically kept separate. It also leads to perceived "weirdness" to readers when they see a paper taking money from a corporation to run an advertisement alongside an article critical of said corporation. This isn't to invalidate your point completely, but to give some insight to those who are not aware of how this conflict of interest h…

Yes, of course, I agree. And it doesn't invalidate my point at all. I would say that you're pointing out the problem that people don't understand how important it is to avoid conflicts of interest, and that we need systems in place to minimize it.

The case of Donald Trump is a perfect example. He had conflicts of interest galore, didn't even deny them, in fact he flouted them, and many people seemed to think everything was fine.

We need to be aware not only of the existence of conflicts of interest, but also of (1) how corrosive these conflicts are, and (2) the crucial importance of designing systems to minimize the bad incentives and effects that arise from conflicts of interest. Systems, in other words, that minimize the harm that -- because of human nature -- inevitably flows even from well-intentioned people when conflicts of interest are tolerated.

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

#185

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

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…

I pay for multiple print subscriptions but I see your point.

What's free often proves most costly. Less fortunate people can't afford to pay and consume whatever is shoveled into them for free. Moneyed interests can afford to subsidize bullshit.

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

#186

Post by FpUser »

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…

>"My question is: is this actually happening?"

I think what is happening is they are buying their ability to publish news. Once accomplished you will see plenty of those "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" I think.

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

#187

Post by smooth_remmy »

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.

Have you tried pay for business intelligence reports? Those are still "news" and they have a strong financial incentive to tell the truth

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

#189

Post by slg »

CivBase wrote: post #158
slg wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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 fundraiser one day and is voting on climate change regulation the next. Bias will exist there even if it isn't conscious or intentional.

It works differently in journalism. From the outside we see the NYT as a single entity, but that isn't the case from the inside. There is a strict firewall between the business and editorial staffs at any reputable news org. The people who sell the ads or count the money are not the same people who choose what is covered or write the stories (this can change at smaller outlets and blogging changed some of this online, but the basic premise still holds). Anyone who has been to journalism schools has been taught the importance of this separation. Most journalists feel very strongly about this separation and they often speak out when it is violated.

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

#190

Post by lolinder »

_rpd wrote: post #172
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…

> 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.
Post reply on HN