10 ms·

Comcast-Owned Vox Runs Commercial for Comcast’s $500M Snapchat Investment

237 points by Sujan 10y ago

swampthinker 10y ago
Which is strange, as Vox and it's child companies usually do a good job of disclosing things like this.
- pkill17 10y ago
  There was another example in this very article of them writing a glowing defense of Comcast, which they neglected to put a disclaimer on until a large outcry caught up with them. Where are you getting your opinion that they "usually do a good job of disclosing things"?
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    I think the problem is a lot of people go "I agree with essentially everything this newspaper puts out, thus this is great journalism!" when really good journalism would likely have you disagreeing with it as much as you agree.
    - richk449 10y ago
      Of course, since most people don't want to read things that they disagree with, the result is that most people don't want to read good journalism.
      - smsm42 10y ago
        I think you oversimplify. Most peopke are more tolerant to bad journalism if it confirms their prejudices. And doing good journalism is harder than doing bad one. Thus it is easy to get away with bad one if you only care about click and/or only care for one ideological niche. But that doesn't mean there's no demand for high quality journalism - it's just harder to do it, so less people bother to. In nonpolitical topics, where prejudices are less strong, there is plenty of quality content. And if we stop supporting crappy content in political topics, it will happen there too.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - madeofpalk 10y ago
    The Verge very often does, like in "The Worst Company In America"[1], there's a disclaimer. I listen to their podcast and whenever Comcast comes up (and always highly critical of the company) they recite the disclaimer before making fun of them for investing in them. But, this article http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/2/14488212/comcast-protest-trump-immigration-ban http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/2/14488212/comcast-protest-tr... from Feb 2 has a disclaimer down the bottom, but then this one Feb 8 doesn't http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/8/14554354/comcast-fastest-internet-wi-fi-lie-marketing-verizon-fios http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/8/14554354/comcast-fastest-in... [1]: http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/19/6004131/comcast-the-worst-company-in-america http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/19/6004131/comcast-the-worst-...
m3kw9 10y ago
Pump and ..
- elastic_church 10y ago
  Dump :D
zjaffee 10y ago
This makes no sense, while Vox might sometimes post video stories on their discover platform, it's not particularly common that they do when compared to other partners such as mashable or buzzfeed. Regardless, you see similar articles about Snap on websites that don't share any major investors with the company, so this argument doesn't really make sense.
- pkill17 10y ago
  If large stakeholders in Snap also had large stakes in all these media outlets praising the Snap IPO, would you say the same? It's not really about what everyone else is reporting; it's the fact that no matter what the spin, they should disclose their ties to Snap's success so the reader is fully aware that this piece could come across as a back-scratch type of move on Vox's part.
securingsincity 10y ago
Being a regular vergecast listener they regularly disclose that the verge which is part of vox is invested by comcast. It's interesting that vox wouldn't when it's other publications do so even when they are just riffing in their podcast.
interstitial 10y ago
Next you guys are going to think the CIA's contract with the owner of the Washington Post is a bad thing.
_mhyx 10y ago
Does anyone else deeply distrust Vox? The quality varies a LOT, they frequently present opinions as facts, etc. The weird thing is they have moments of brilliance like the "Liberal Smugness" piece - but search "Vox News article" and it looks like even the left really hates them. They seem more interested in telling me how to feel than the facts, I guess. I wish the rest of the world had the same pride in journalism as say, the Economist or the New Yorker
- camdenlock 10y ago
  You're not alone in feeling a sense of distrust when reading Vox content. Like Mic, it's more of a finely-tuned fad-amplifying machine than a journalistic outlet. Above all, it seems to prioritize whatever flavor of outrage is popular with the kids at any given moment. To be fair, though, Mic is almost a bad comparison because of just how much worse it is than Vox. But they certainly are thematically similar.
- dstaley 10y ago
  One of the reasons people seem to have an aversion to Vox's format is that it's not meant to be like the rest of news journalism. When they first announced Vox, it was described as such: > Vox.com is news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. So, if you're accustomed to "the noise", I can understand why you might distrust Vox.
  - austenallred 10y ago
    I wouldn't take the marketing-speak too seriously. Vox is no different than any other pageview-seeking news organization, all of which claim to cut through the noise. Most "news" these days is just content created to drive page views by discussing hot current events. Vox included.
    - dstaley 10y ago
      Totally agree. I'm just pointing out that their self-stated motivation behind news coverage is why some people dislike their format.
dstaley 10y ago
I totally think that when a Vox Media publication writes about Comcast that they should disclose the fact that Comcast Ventures owns a minority stake in Vox Media. However, I think it's a bit ridiculous to expect them to disclose this every time they cover one of their investor's portfolio companies. According to Crunchbase [1], there are 1,124 companies that share at least one investor with Vox Media. That's a pretty large list for editors to keep track of. I'm not aware of any publication that provide disclosure statements when they cover one of their investor's portfolio companies. [1] https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/vox-media/insights/investors https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/vox-media/insights/i...
- iaw 10y ago
  I think the challenge arises in ascertaining whether or not there is an adverse incentive driving their reporting on a given story. In the case of Snap it seems safe to conclude that someone asked them to write positive stories. The need to disclose all potential conflicts arise because we cannot trust the authors of these sponsored stories to honestly disclose that that is what they are.
  - binarybits 10y ago
    "It seems safe to conclude that someone asked them to write positive stories." As the author of the article in question, I can tell you that this is false.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- 013a 10y ago
  Yeah, that's asking a lot of journalists. We all know that writing high quality pieces is what Vox is famous for, I guess they just can't be expected to have the time to put something like "journalistic integrity" or "proper research" into what they write.
throwthisawayt 10y ago
On a slight tangent, anyone else really annoyed by the articles which seem to be "company profiles" but really are PR puff pieces. They masquered as real journalism but they feel like content spoon fed by the company's PR manager. They tend to be at publications like Fast company, Techcrunch, and business insider. Anyone have a way to filter out puff pieces? I have been thinking about building an algorithm since these pieces now filter into more reputable sources like WSJ and Nytimes too.
te_chris 10y ago
The Baffler, one of my favourite publications, nailed Vox a wee while back: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/explanation-for-what-johnson https://thebaffler.com/salvos/explanation-for-what-johnson
paulpauper 10y ago
I'm guessing that investment is now up 100% minimum..I wish I could have invested too when it was only worth $3 billion. The question is, how far down the chain is a disclosure necessary? It seems like calling out conflicts of interest is a way to discredit someone or something without having to actually create an argument against it.
late2part 10y ago
Is it any wonder that the youth distrusts media. The confidence seems to be disappearing quicker than a picture on Snapchat.
smsm42 10y ago
I find the headline a little misleading. Reading it, I was thinking "ok, Vox runs an ad for Comcast - what's wrong, all the press runs ads, that's how they make the money, and why would they refuse to run an ad for Comcast?". Reading further, the allegation seems to be much more serious - that Vox run an article, purporting to be an editorial content, but in fact being, by its content, very close to an ad. Wasn't clear from the headline at all.

237 points by Sujan 10y ago

swampthinker 10y ago

Which is strange, as Vox and it's child companies usually do a good job of disclosing things like this.

pkill17 10y ago
There was another example in this very article of them writing a glowing defense of Comcast, which they neglected to put a disclaimer on until a large outcry caught up with them. Where are you getting your opinion that they "usually do a good job of disclosing things"?
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  I think the problem is a lot of people go "I agree with essentially everything this newspaper puts out, thus this is great journalism!" when really good journalism would likely have you disagreeing with it as much as you agree.
  - richk449 10y ago
    Of course, since most people don't want to read things that they disagree with, the result is that most people don't want to read good journalism.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      I think you oversimplify. Most peopke are more tolerant to bad journalism if it confirms their prejudices. And doing good journalism is harder than doing bad one. Thus it is easy to get away with bad one if you only care about click and/or only care for one ideological niche. But that doesn't mean there's no demand for high quality journalism - it's just harder to do it, so less people bother to. In nonpolitical topics, where prejudices are less strong, there is plenty of quality content. And if we stop supporting crappy content in political topics, it will happen there too.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- madeofpalk 10y ago
  The Verge very often does, like in "The Worst Company In America"[1], there's a disclaimer. I listen to their podcast and whenever Comcast comes up (and always highly critical of the company) they recite the disclaimer before making fun of them for investing in them. But, this article http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/2/14488212/comcast-protest-trump-immigration-ban http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/2/14488212/comcast-protest-tr... from Feb 2 has a disclaimer down the bottom, but then this one Feb 8 doesn't http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/8/14554354/comcast-fastest-internet-wi-fi-lie-marketing-verizon-fios http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/8/14554354/comcast-fastest-in... [1]: http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/19/6004131/comcast-the-worst-company-in-america http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/19/6004131/comcast-the-worst-...

m3kw9 10y ago

Pump and ..

elastic_church 10y ago
Dump :D

zjaffee 10y ago

This makes no sense, while Vox might sometimes post video stories on their discover platform, it's not particularly common that they do when compared to other partners such as mashable or buzzfeed. Regardless, you see similar articles about Snap on websites that don't share any major investors with the company, so this argument doesn't really make sense.

pkill17 10y ago
If large stakeholders in Snap also had large stakes in all these media outlets praising the Snap IPO, would you say the same? It's not really about what everyone else is reporting; it's the fact that no matter what the spin, they should disclose their ties to Snap's success so the reader is fully aware that this piece could come across as a back-scratch type of move on Vox's part.

securingsincity 10y ago

Being a regular vergecast listener they regularly disclose that the verge which is part of vox is invested by comcast. It's interesting that vox wouldn't when it's other publications do so even when they are just riffing in their podcast.

interstitial 10y ago

Next you guys are going to think the CIA's contract with the owner of the Washington Post is a bad thing.

_mhyx 10y ago

Does anyone else deeply distrust Vox? The quality varies a LOT, they frequently present opinions as facts, etc. The weird thing is they have moments of brilliance like the "Liberal Smugness" piece - but search "Vox News article" and it looks like even the left really hates them. They seem more interested in telling me how to feel than the facts, I guess. I wish the rest of the world had the same pride in journalism as say, the Economist or the New Yorker

camdenlock 10y ago
You're not alone in feeling a sense of distrust when reading Vox content. Like Mic, it's more of a finely-tuned fad-amplifying machine than a journalistic outlet. Above all, it seems to prioritize whatever flavor of outrage is popular with the kids at any given moment. To be fair, though, Mic is almost a bad comparison because of just how much worse it is than Vox. But they certainly are thematically similar.
dstaley 10y ago
One of the reasons people seem to have an aversion to Vox's format is that it's not meant to be like the rest of news journalism. When they first announced Vox, it was described as such: > Vox.com is news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. So, if you're accustomed to "the noise", I can understand why you might distrust Vox.
- austenallred 10y ago
  I wouldn't take the marketing-speak too seriously. Vox is no different than any other pageview-seeking news organization, all of which claim to cut through the noise. Most "news" these days is just content created to drive page views by discussing hot current events. Vox included.
  - dstaley 10y ago
    Totally agree. I'm just pointing out that their self-stated motivation behind news coverage is why some people dislike their format.

dstaley 10y ago

I totally think that when a Vox Media publication writes about Comcast that they should disclose the fact that Comcast Ventures owns a minority stake in Vox Media. However, I think it's a bit ridiculous to expect them to disclose this every time they cover one of their investor's portfolio companies. According to Crunchbase [1], there are 1,124 companies that share at least one investor with Vox Media. That's a pretty large list for editors to keep track of. I'm not aware of any publication that provide disclosure statements when they cover one of their investor's portfolio companies. [1] https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/vox-media/insights/investors https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/vox-media/insights/i...

iaw 10y ago
I think the challenge arises in ascertaining whether or not there is an adverse incentive driving their reporting on a given story. In the case of Snap it seems safe to conclude that someone asked them to write positive stories. The need to disclose all potential conflicts arise because we cannot trust the authors of these sponsored stories to honestly disclose that that is what they are.
- binarybits 10y ago
  "It seems safe to conclude that someone asked them to write positive stories." As the author of the article in question, I can tell you that this is false.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
013a 10y ago
Yeah, that's asking a lot of journalists. We all know that writing high quality pieces is what Vox is famous for, I guess they just can't be expected to have the time to put something like "journalistic integrity" or "proper research" into what they write.

throwthisawayt 10y ago

On a slight tangent, anyone else really annoyed by the articles which seem to be "company profiles" but really are PR puff pieces. They masquered as real journalism but they feel like content spoon fed by the company's PR manager. They tend to be at publications like Fast company, Techcrunch, and business insider. Anyone have a way to filter out puff pieces? I have been thinking about building an algorithm since these pieces now filter into more reputable sources like WSJ and Nytimes too.

te_chris 10y ago

The Baffler, one of my favourite publications, nailed Vox a wee while back: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/explanation-for-what-johnson https://thebaffler.com/salvos/explanation-for-what-johnson

paulpauper 10y ago

I'm guessing that investment is now up 100% minimum..I wish I could have invested too when it was only worth $3 billion. The question is, how far down the chain is a disclosure necessary? It seems like calling out conflicts of interest is a way to discredit someone or something without having to actually create an argument against it.

late2part 10y ago

Is it any wonder that the youth distrusts media. The confidence seems to be disappearing quicker than a picture on Snapchat.

smsm42 10y ago

I find the headline a little misleading. Reading it, I was thinking "ok, Vox runs an ad for Comcast - what's wrong, all the press runs ads, that's how they make the money, and why would they refuse to run an ad for Comcast?". Reading further, the allegation seems to be much more serious - that Vox run an article, purporting to be an editorial content, but in fact being, by its content, very close to an ad. Wasn't clear from the headline at all.