3 ms·
Very much agree, but do you really think it's all that different at the NY Times? I'm sure at FB no one thought they were going to beat Trump by being deceptiv
by jessriedel 11y ago
Very much agree, but do you really think it's all that different at the NY Times? I'm sure at FB no one thought they were going to beat Trump by being deceptive or manipulative. No, they would just link to stories they thought were more accurate, had less spin, covered more sides etc. Likewise, I'm sure many NY Times reporters are driven by a feeling of duty to concentrate on issues where they feel they can bring truth/illumination to the campaign and get Trump defeated.
I guess it's plausible to me that a new company like FB lacks some sort of important company culture for reporting that the NY Times has by virtue of its long history, but this seems minor. The real issue is (1) the consolidation in the news industry and (2) its political homogeneity. FB and the NY Times are each examples of both.
- notliketherest 11y agoThere's a few important differences at play I think. First, the NYT has a few million paid subscribers, whereas Facebook is a free service with a billion and a half members. Just like their technical infrastructure, the sheer scale of their platform and reach is mind-boggling, global and borderless - unlike anything the world has ever seen. We may be fooling ourselves by judging Facebook through the lens of old media - there's been a paradigm shift and it needs to be appreciated and judged as such. Second, the NYT is a media company - which generally leans left. They create content. Facebook is more akin to the printing press company that newspaper companies employee (ROUGH analogy) or cable providers for TV. Remember how much shit Verizon (Comcast?) got itself in when it manipulated internet packets to deliver it's own advertising to its subscribers? Didn't they get sued and have to pay millions? I think Facebook manipulating its news feed algorithm should be as egregious as that behavior.
- rgo 11y agoTo me the relationship between NYT and FB (or any other content creator and FB) is not very different from that of freelancer content writers and content companies like Demand Media, of eHow and Livestrong fame. The only difference is that content published in FB, either by users or sponsored, gets to keep its branding, whereas content freelancer are ghosts - although most people I know share content in FB with total disregard to the source. It's sad to see how quality content creators like NYT now get to share the wall with unscrupulous ones. To all effects, FB is turning news into a commodity.