3 ms·

I'm not going to defend Facebook but one of the problems with media criticism of Facebook (and Google) is that Facebook (and Google) has crushed a lot of media.

I'm not going to defend Facebook but one of the problems with media criticism of Facebook (and Google) is that Facebook (and Google) has crushed a lot of media. They have become vassals of Facebook (and Google) in order to harvest the clicks they desperately need. They have very little control of their advertising and distribution model now. This has also driven Madison Ave. nuts. Anecdotal but friends I have working in that space have no lost love for Facebook (and Google). My point is there is incentive for media to criticize Facebook and we just don't seem to see this disclosure.

gerbilly 8y ago
> They have become vassals of Facebook (and Google) in order to harvest the clicks they desperately need. I know a lot of people in the newspaper and magazine industry, and this comment is spot on.
kodablah 8y ago
> My point is there is incentive for media to criticize Facebook and we just don't seem to see this disclosure. There's also hypocrisy afoot as these news organizations publish anti-FB opinions under the guise of their news organization domains which muddies fact and opinion much more than the print days. They leverage visitor trust to inject thought.
jacknews 8y ago
I agree, have an upvote. But I got downvoted for making the same argument.
PavlovsCat 8y ago
That may be true, but what does this add to or remove from the criticism itself?
- nemo44x 8y ago
  I agree but full disclosure on how they rely on Facebook may be in order. This gives the reader a fair chance to assess if the article or authors may have a bias in how they report the story. For instance, could Facebook begin to offer these publishers and/or authors incentive to not publish these things in the future? Either with stick or carrot. Could that influence how and what they publish?
  - PavlovsCat 8y ago
    Speaking of full disclosure, are "old media" just jealous, or do "new media" not want to be scrutinized, in ways they cannot easily lead people away from, drown out with spam, or even outright delete? > I agree but full disclosure on how they rely on Facebook may be in order. They dislike Facebook because it cuts into our margins. That in and of itself doesn't have to make reporting inaccurate. If anyone writes an article about cancer, should they also make known they have friends that died of cancer? Maybe cancer is getting a really bad rap because everybody who writes about it doesn't like it? Wouldn't research best be done by people who don't find it particularly horrible? And if you wanted to factual information about human traffickers, would you rather ask a detective on a task force dealing with them, a human trafficker, a victim, or a random person who has "no bias"? It's not like the media always said/wrote mean things about Facebook and Google, is it? When I compare to techy people on the internet, it seems they came way late to all of the parties, and wrote a lot of gloating things, too. Why the bias about when bias matters, when "old media" criticize "new media"? Wouldn't it make more sense to point out distortions or falsehoods if see any, and then say "that shows this publication/author/article is biased"? So you want them to admit bias you assume they have. Okay, and then what? You already assume it anyway, so for you nothing would even change. What's the functionality here? > For instance, could Facebook begin to offer these publishers and/or authors incentive to not publish these things in the future? Either with stick or carrot. Could that influence how and what they publish? So what is any particular publication supposed to write? Can you give me a concrete example of what to add to this article so that "the reader has a fair chance to assess if the article or authors may have a bias in how they report the story"? I mean, yes, Facebook could begin to offer things to them or others for that or other things. And yes, that could influence things. That depends on who they are, and what is offered, to do what. and anything "might" have a bias. That's just a given, I don't understand what could be added to every single article that would help here. "when we wrote X, it's actually Y in fact, but we don't like Facebook so we're not saying that"?

gerbilly 8y ago

> They have become vassals of Facebook (and Google) in order to harvest the clicks they desperately need. I know a lot of people in the newspaper and magazine industry, and this comment is spot on.

kodablah 8y ago

> My point is there is incentive for media to criticize Facebook and we just don't seem to see this disclosure. There's also hypocrisy afoot as these news organizations publish anti-FB opinions under the guise of their news organization domains which muddies fact and opinion much more than the print days. They leverage visitor trust to inject thought.

jacknews 8y ago

I agree, have an upvote. But I got downvoted for making the same argument.

PavlovsCat 8y ago

That may be true, but what does this add to or remove from the criticism itself?

nemo44x 8y ago
I agree but full disclosure on how they rely on Facebook may be in order. This gives the reader a fair chance to assess if the article or authors may have a bias in how they report the story. For instance, could Facebook begin to offer these publishers and/or authors incentive to not publish these things in the future? Either with stick or carrot. Could that influence how and what they publish?
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  Speaking of full disclosure, are "old media" just jealous, or do "new media" not want to be scrutinized, in ways they cannot easily lead people away from, drown out with spam, or even outright delete? > I agree but full disclosure on how they rely on Facebook may be in order. They dislike Facebook because it cuts into our margins. That in and of itself doesn't have to make reporting inaccurate. If anyone writes an article about cancer, should they also make known they have friends that died of cancer? Maybe cancer is getting a really bad rap because everybody who writes about it doesn't like it? Wouldn't research best be done by people who don't find it particularly horrible? And if you wanted to factual information about human traffickers, would you rather ask a detective on a task force dealing with them, a human trafficker, a victim, or a random person who has "no bias"? It's not like the media always said/wrote mean things about Facebook and Google, is it? When I compare to techy people on the internet, it seems they came way late to all of the parties, and wrote a lot of gloating things, too. Why the bias about when bias matters, when "old media" criticize "new media"? Wouldn't it make more sense to point out distortions or falsehoods if see any, and then say "that shows this publication/author/article is biased"? So you want them to admit bias you assume they have. Okay, and then what? You already assume it anyway, so for you nothing would even change. What's the functionality here? > For instance, could Facebook begin to offer these publishers and/or authors incentive to not publish these things in the future? Either with stick or carrot. Could that influence how and what they publish? So what is any particular publication supposed to write? Can you give me a concrete example of what to add to this article so that "the reader has a fair chance to assess if the article or authors may have a bias in how they report the story"? I mean, yes, Facebook could begin to offer things to them or others for that or other things. And yes, that could influence things. That depends on who they are, and what is offered, to do what. and anything "might" have a bias. That's just a given, I don't understand what could be added to every single article that would help here. "when we wrote X, it's actually Y in fact, but we don't like Facebook so we're not saying that"?