5 ms·
Facebook dropped algorithmic news curation "after criticism that it had not included enough coverage of unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, in users’ feeds". Its cur
by scholia 10y ago
Facebook dropped algorithmic news curation "after criticism that it had not included enough coverage of unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, in users’ feeds".
Its current "agenda" is based on reputable news sources, plus Fox News (1):
"We measure this by checking if it is leading at least 5 of the following 10 news websites: BBC News, CNN, Fox News, The Guardian, NBC News, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Yahoo News or Yahoo."
I'd say that was a fair reflection of mainstream media.
If you object to those, what's your personal agenda based on, and how mainstream is it?
(1) Fox News has specifically said in court that it is not required to be truthful.
- extra88 10y agoI agree that it's a reasonable list for U.S. news. Yahoo is a weird one to have on the list, do they do any original reporting (of real news, not entertainment)? Maybe they're a reliable source of AP or other newswire services.
- eropple 10y agoYahoo has a pretty strong sports reporting group. They have many of the heavy hitters in basketball media, for example. It makes sense to me that they'd be a common source. (If you're gonna be That Guy and hurr about sports being entertainment, you can pass.)
- scholia 10y agoYou're right, it's a reliable source of newswires. I don't think it does any original news reporting.
- nommm-nommm 10y agoAlexa ranks Yahoo News the 8th most popular news source on the Internet. More popular than Fox News, BBC, and WSJ. As previously mentioned their sports coverage is superb. Yahoo has at least experimented with original content but I am not sure if they still have it. http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category/Top/News http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category/Top/News
- MBCook 10y agoI was going to vote your comment up, but I refrained. I also didn't vote it down, and I want to mention why. I don't see the need for you to put those digs in against Fox News. I get people don't like Fox News. I'm not a fan. But everyone here (on the whole) seems to hold a similar opinion, so the digs aren't necessary. They weren't even germain to your point. You were making a perfectly good argument that numerous sources from both sides of the spectrum were included. I felt your commentary and singling out of Fox News distracted me from that.
- EdHominem 10y agoFox News isn't news, that's the point. Fox has gone to the trouble of making it clear that they're an entertainment channel, not a news channel. If this bothers you, contact Fox.
- scholia 10y agoI didn't think it was a dig or gratuitous. It's a matter of fact that Facebook includes Fox News in its news sources, and as EdHominem points out, it really isn't.
- sbochins 10y agoPointing out that Fox News is not actually a reputable news source is simply stating a fact. It was germane because the other news sources are mostly regarded as legitimate news organizations. Pointing out that Fox News is not and yet is very popular is an important point and completely related to this discussion.
- MBCook 10y agoTo me it seemed like your point was that they were including sources across the spectrum. Simply noting Fox is in there serves that point. If you had editorialized about the quality of the other sources then the commentary on the quality of Fox would have fit in. your comment seems like two disparate things in one. On the one hand it notes that Facebook appeared to try to balance things. On the other hand it felt like a slam at Fox News couched in the form of a comment that might fit in. Clearly you can't write "Fox sucks" as a comment because it wouldn't be in topic. But if you weave it in... It just distracted me from what I took to be your point, harming the force/usefulness of your comment.
- jayess 10y agoThere is no media outlet that is "required" to be truthful.