4 ms·

The journalists aren't the ones making that decision though, so I don't think that speaks to the quality of the article itself.

by warent 7y ago

mr_toad 7y ago
I’m not sure which is worse, that journalists are unaware of what their own papers are doing, or that they’re keeping quiet about it.
- save_ferris 7y ago
  You make it sound like some conspiracy that journalists rely on advertising tech while publishing negative stories about it. Journalists aren't the ones building the CMS features for their publishers. I used to be a developer at a newspaper in 2016, and most of my coworkers on the journalism side didn't understand the business side of the paper, it wasn't their job. But I'll emphasize my previous point again: newspapers would die without online advertising revenue. Even with online ads, publications around the country are being sold at record low prices and shut down or kneecapped by private equity groups. I highly encourage you to read up on the financial landscape of news in 2019, it's terribly grim. Massive contraction is occurring the industry, prompting major consolidation of media groups. Companies like Digital First Media acquire large collections of papers and immediately fire half of the newsroom, and this is happening nationwide.[0] I get that it's so easy to point fingers at news orgs for using online ads, but they didn't really have a choice. When companies like Google and Facebook took control of the distribution and access of content, newspapers became their customers in order to stay alive. 0: https://www.inquirer.com/business/reading-eagle-newspaper-digital-first-medianews-gannett-20190522.html https://www.inquirer.com/business/reading-eagle-newspaper-di...
  - wolco 7y ago
    Journalists publishing stories around ad tracking should be aware of that they are doing the same thing. The user would be better off privacy-wise by not reading the article. They could still have ads but why add tracking?
- wwweston 7y ago
  In fact, maybe all journalists everywhere should just focus on investigating the organizations they write/work for, and stop talking about anything else until those places are paragons above criticism, right? Maybe next up: only debt-free people/orgs are allowed to talk about deficits? (Sure, journalism, like most other professions, can use introspection, including the topic of how tracking works, but if there's any case that something needs to be said every time the topic of tracking comes up -- and it's not clear that it is -- that should largely be an editorial call.)
briandear 7y ago
The “just following orders” argument? Journalists know good and well what their websites are doing if they themselves are supposedly experts on reporting on this sort of thing. They expect employees at Google et al to go against their masters yet they are hypocrites because they don’t go against theirs.
- warent 7y ago
  No, that's something completely different. These writers aren't actively implementing the advertising software. They're not "following orders" in anything with respect to ad tracking simply by being a contributor on the platform. At worst, they're complicit by working for the company that utilizes it. Frankly though we all complicit in this stuff one way or another even if there's the illusion that we aren't by some degree of separation. (EDIT: Deleted irrelevant argument)

The journalists aren't the ones making that decision though, so I don't think that speaks to the quality of the article itself.

by warent 7y ago

The journalists aren't the ones making that decision though, so I don't think that speaks to the quality of the article itself.

mr_toad 7y ago

I’m not sure which is worse, that journalists are unaware of what their own papers are doing, or that they’re keeping quiet about it.

save_ferris 7y ago
You make it sound like some conspiracy that journalists rely on advertising tech while publishing negative stories about it. Journalists aren't the ones building the CMS features for their publishers. I used to be a developer at a newspaper in 2016, and most of my coworkers on the journalism side didn't understand the business side of the paper, it wasn't their job. But I'll emphasize my previous point again: newspapers would die without online advertising revenue. Even with online ads, publications around the country are being sold at record low prices and shut down or kneecapped by private equity groups. I highly encourage you to read up on the financial landscape of news in 2019, it's terribly grim. Massive contraction is occurring the industry, prompting major consolidation of media groups. Companies like Digital First Media acquire large collections of papers and immediately fire half of the newsroom, and this is happening nationwide.[0] I get that it's so easy to point fingers at news orgs for using online ads, but they didn't really have a choice. When companies like Google and Facebook took control of the distribution and access of content, newspapers became their customers in order to stay alive. 0: https://www.inquirer.com/business/reading-eagle-newspaper-digital-first-medianews-gannett-20190522.html https://www.inquirer.com/business/reading-eagle-newspaper-di...
- wolco 7y ago
  Journalists publishing stories around ad tracking should be aware of that they are doing the same thing. The user would be better off privacy-wise by not reading the article. They could still have ads but why add tracking?
wwweston 7y ago
In fact, maybe all journalists everywhere should just focus on investigating the organizations they write/work for, and stop talking about anything else until those places are paragons above criticism, right? Maybe next up: only debt-free people/orgs are allowed to talk about deficits? (Sure, journalism, like most other professions, can use introspection, including the topic of how tracking works, but if there's any case that something needs to be said every time the topic of tracking comes up -- and it's not clear that it is -- that should largely be an editorial call.)

briandear 7y ago

The “just following orders” argument? Journalists know good and well what their websites are doing if they themselves are supposedly experts on reporting on this sort of thing. They expect employees at Google et al to go against their masters yet they are hypocrites because they don’t go against theirs.

warent 7y ago
No, that's something completely different. These writers aren't actively implementing the advertising software. They're not "following orders" in anything with respect to ad tracking simply by being a contributor on the platform. At worst, they're complicit by working for the company that utilizes it. Frankly though we all complicit in this stuff one way or another even if there's the illusion that we aren't by some degree of separation. (EDIT: Deleted irrelevant argument)