4 ms·

Does The NY Times publish a Facebook bashing article every day?

na85 8y ago
That's their prerogative, but I'm okay with major media outlets trying to wake people up to the fact that Facebook is a danger to society.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  Imagine if Facebook or some other platform did that to news outlets they didn't like. I think people would be quite concerned.
  - smt88 8y ago
    And they should be concerned if FB did it because FB is not a journalism company. Journalism is our most important check on govt and corporate power, and they certainly should be checking FB's astonishing amount of power on a daily basis. If FB did the same to journalists, it certainly would be disturbing, because FB's customers are not its readers and it has no editorial firewall. Anything it says is hopelessly self-interested.
    - papermill 8y ago
      Independent journalism maybe. But corporate journalism isn't a check on government or corporate power. The NYTimes doesn't check power, it represents power. It is power. I think it is time people stop pretending news companies are any different from any other media companies. The NYTimes was created by one of the wealthiest bankers for christ's sakes.
      - smt88 8y ago
        So they haven't broken any major stories about govt or corporate corruption in the last few years? They haven't published the accounts of whistleblowers? Just the fact that they've been criticizing Facebook since before most of these scandals broke is proof that they're a check. They're not perfect or without an agenda, but no human organization is. But they do make money and earn prestige from muckraking, so they do it. FB earns money from harming us in unnoticeable doses.
      - erichocean 8y ago
        > The NYTimes was created by one of the wealthiest bankers for christ's sakes. Modern example: Jared Kushner's father Charles bought The New York Observer just to get good press about himself to counteract all the illegal stuff he was doing (and was convicted of). Kushner is now running the Trump White House, and is married to Ivanka Trump. That's the "free press" for you! Now let's see…who owns the Washington Post again?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - threatofrain 8y ago
      In some ways Facebook is less than a journalism company, because the content that circulates on there originates from the people. Facebook is Reddit, and here we're talking about WhatsApp the chat app, and a chat app is even more "content by the people". The subtext to all of this is "people are weak" and need protection from their own powers of free association (your network is curated by you). It's one thing to say that people can't put marijuana into their bodies, but it's another to say I can't even handle the speech of my peers because it'll delude my sense of reality. Then how do you have faith in democracy?
      - intended 8y ago
        You shouldn’t. Yes, people can’t handle the speech of their peers because some of their peers are specialists in messaging. They’ve been doing it before the internet. Heck, America taught the world that facts don’t matter by concocting the anti-vaxx movement and creationism. Both were designed, or happened, to target weakness in human thinking. It’s a brave new world out there now with the internet. Verification is harder than content generation. If I flood the right network then it’s members will also be influenced because their trusted sources are also going to be repeating similar ideas. And yes, the speech of their peers is deluding their sense of reality, literally. https://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/554 https://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/554 Hey, bread and circuses worked for Rome for a while didn’t it. Edit: changed anti-vas’s to anti-vaxx
        Mirioron 8y ago
        Do you understand that these journalists are the "experts in messaging"? These are the very people that push fake stories. Look at the whole Russia collusion story or Covington. Both of these were pushed hard by journalists using the immense power of their publications. Yet we're fairly certain that both of these were wrong and abuses of power by those journalists. In today's age you cannot trust what a journalist says if they don't have proof that they can show you.
        intended 8y ago
        Subject A: An actual expert in messaging: http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM116_luntz.pdf http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM116_luntz.pdf That is a reference document I would use to show people how to do messaging effectively. While there may be people who can do that in the media as well, but in general this is a dark art suited to people who want to MAKE reality and not just report reality.
  - na85 8y ago
    Perhaps, but Facebook to the best of my knowledge doesn't claim to be a journalistic outlet. Independence of the press is very important, or at least should be, to everyone. For it to be ok for the NYT to write whatever it wants means it's also ok for the Economist or the Globe & Mail to write whatever they want.
alkibiades 8y ago
yes they blame them for trump winning and taking all the add dollars and “killing news”

na85 8y ago

That's their prerogative, but I'm okay with major media outlets trying to wake people up to the fact that Facebook is a danger to society.

Mirioron 8y ago
Imagine if Facebook or some other platform did that to news outlets they didn't like. I think people would be quite concerned.
- smt88 8y ago
  And they should be concerned if FB did it because FB is not a journalism company. Journalism is our most important check on govt and corporate power, and they certainly should be checking FB's astonishing amount of power on a daily basis. If FB did the same to journalists, it certainly would be disturbing, because FB's customers are not its readers and it has no editorial firewall. Anything it says is hopelessly self-interested.
  - papermill 8y ago
    Independent journalism maybe. But corporate journalism isn't a check on government or corporate power. The NYTimes doesn't check power, it represents power. It is power. I think it is time people stop pretending news companies are any different from any other media companies. The NYTimes was created by one of the wealthiest bankers for christ's sakes.
    - smt88 8y ago
      So they haven't broken any major stories about govt or corporate corruption in the last few years? They haven't published the accounts of whistleblowers? Just the fact that they've been criticizing Facebook since before most of these scandals broke is proof that they're a check. They're not perfect or without an agenda, but no human organization is. But they do make money and earn prestige from muckraking, so they do it. FB earns money from harming us in unnoticeable doses.
    - erichocean 8y ago
      > The NYTimes was created by one of the wealthiest bankers for christ's sakes. Modern example: Jared Kushner's father Charles bought The New York Observer just to get good press about himself to counteract all the illegal stuff he was doing (and was convicted of). Kushner is now running the Trump White House, and is married to Ivanka Trump. That's the "free press" for you! Now let's see…who owns the Washington Post again?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - threatofrain 8y ago
    In some ways Facebook is less than a journalism company, because the content that circulates on there originates from the people. Facebook is Reddit, and here we're talking about WhatsApp the chat app, and a chat app is even more "content by the people". The subtext to all of this is "people are weak" and need protection from their own powers of free association (your network is curated by you). It's one thing to say that people can't put marijuana into their bodies, but it's another to say I can't even handle the speech of my peers because it'll delude my sense of reality. Then how do you have faith in democracy?
    - intended 8y ago
      You shouldn’t. Yes, people can’t handle the speech of their peers because some of their peers are specialists in messaging. They’ve been doing it before the internet. Heck, America taught the world that facts don’t matter by concocting the anti-vaxx movement and creationism. Both were designed, or happened, to target weakness in human thinking. It’s a brave new world out there now with the internet. Verification is harder than content generation. If I flood the right network then it’s members will also be influenced because their trusted sources are also going to be repeating similar ideas. And yes, the speech of their peers is deluding their sense of reality, literally. https://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/554 https://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/554 Hey, bread and circuses worked for Rome for a while didn’t it. Edit: changed anti-vas’s to anti-vaxx
      - Mirioron 8y ago
        Do you understand that these journalists are the "experts in messaging"? These are the very people that push fake stories. Look at the whole Russia collusion story or Covington. Both of these were pushed hard by journalists using the immense power of their publications. Yet we're fairly certain that both of these were wrong and abuses of power by those journalists. In today's age you cannot trust what a journalist says if they don't have proof that they can show you.
        intended 8y ago
        Subject A: An actual expert in messaging: http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM116_luntz.pdf http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM116_luntz.pdf That is a reference document I would use to show people how to do messaging effectively. While there may be people who can do that in the media as well, but in general this is a dark art suited to people who want to MAKE reality and not just report reality.
- na85 8y ago
  Perhaps, but Facebook to the best of my knowledge doesn't claim to be a journalistic outlet. Independence of the press is very important, or at least should be, to everyone. For it to be ok for the NYT to write whatever it wants means it's also ok for the Economist or the Globe & Mail to write whatever they want.

alkibiades 8y ago

yes they blame them for trump winning and taking all the add dollars and “killing news”