4 ms·

>The core conflict here isn't new, surely. Newspapers have taken advertising money from news-making companies since time immaterial. And if you can find a viab

by slg 6y ago

>The core conflict here isn't new, surely. Newspapers have taken advertising money from news-making companies since time immaterial. And if you can find a viable alternative to this, your company will be worth hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars[1]. The internet has killed the classifieds business and commoditized news to the point that most people won't pay for it. Accepting advertising from potentially news-making companies is hugely important to keeping news organizations afloat. Vilifying it whenever it happens is potentially dangerous and we should really wait to level these accusations until there is actual evidence of wrongdoing. [1] - https://www.axios.com/substack-andreessen-horowitz-newsletter-36cb98ea-a7b3-43b1-883a-fa45586eaad4.html https://www.axios.com/substack-andreessen-horowitz-newslette...

imwillofficial 6y ago
“If you don’t take money from companies you have a conflict of interest with, it’s dangerous! Think of the children!” I’m sorry but I may have exaggerated for humorous effect, but your line of reasoning I reject outright. There are ways to do this effectually. This is not that way.
- slg 6y ago
  This is the New York Times we are talking about. Literally everything is within their reporting purview. Who can they possibly accept money from that won't present a potential conflict of interest?
  - imwillofficial 6y ago
    Not freaking the Evil Empire of companies would be a great start.
  - ipaddr 6y ago
    NYT provides national coverage. By only accepting and showing regional or local ads this problem can be avoided.
    - slg 6y ago
      National stories are also often regional and local stories. I just pulled up the NYT website. The top story is the Derek Chauvin trial which is certainly also a local story in Minneapolis. The second from the top Opinion piece is about the NYC mayoral race. Does that mean that NYT shouldn't be able to accept any advertising dollars from those markets?
      - ipaddr 6y ago
        What is great about the regional model is the large number of regions which removes the need to not accept from a regiin. In your example Minneapolis is one of many cities the pressure local ad dollars never makes it's way to the editorial board.
  - galangalalgol 6y ago
    Their readers and only their readers otherwise no trust should be given to their reporting. News is worth what people pay for it, and if no one is willing to pay for it then we won't get any real reporting.
    - lupire 6y ago
      Sounds you have beef with the readers for not paying enough, and with non-readers who freeload off investigative journalism's social benefits, and with and plagiarizers like Business Insider. Has a major paper ever not been ad-supported?
CivBase 6y ago
I've re-read your post a few times and I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but it keeps reading to me like "bad things have become the normal and people should stop pointing it out". Whether or not there is a better solution, I think there are clearly dangers inherent to monetizing news with ad revenue and I think there is value in keeping a careful eye on them.
- slg 6y ago
  Yes, I agree that there are dangers. However is there any evidence of the dangers being a reality in this instance? The article directly says there is no evidence. If there is no evidence, why is this story specifically about the NYT and Facebook? There is also danger involved in shaming the NYT for accepting ad money and in turn having them cut coverage in response to decreased revenue. There are plenty of examples of that. I am more concerned with the danger we have evidence of rather than the one we don't.
  - CivBase 6y ago
    > However is there any evidence of the dangers being a reality in this instance? Are we specifically talking about a news organization softening its coverage on a sponsor? There aren't any examples which spring directly to mind, but there are countless examples of other organizations doing this. Politicians being bought-out by businesses and lobbyists is nothing new. Platforms like YouTube have crafted and modified content policies specifically to appeal to their sponsors. News organizations benefit from maintaining an appearance of trustworthiness. If they modified their content for the benefit of a sponsor, they would obviously try to be very discrete about it. Is it a stretch to imagine it has or could easily happen? Especially if people stop worrying out it? Other than reputation, is there anything else to counteract that motivation? > If there is no evidence, why is this story specifically about the NYT and Facebook? As for the NYT/Facebook thing in particular, it doesn't strike me as being inherently worse than any other sponsorship deal. I'm not worried about it in particular so much as I am generally concerned with how dependent news is on ad revenue in general. I'm not vouching for the credibility of this story, but I'm worried that your comment is too dismissive of the broader subject. > There is also danger involved in shaming the NYT for accepting ad money and in turn having them cut coverage in response to decreased revenue. There are plenty of examples of that. I don't know about this. I think whenever an organization is dependent on another for revenue, they risk appearing less impartial towards that organization. I see HN comments accusing Mozilla of appearing to be less impartial towards Google because of their relationship all the time, despite Mozilla directly competing with and regularly speaking out against Google. News outlets benefit from an appearance of impartiality and revenue partnership they form with a third-party comes with a risk of damaging that appearance. It's up to the NYT to convince readers they can be trusted with the partnerships they've made. Frankly, I think they've probably built up enough of a reputation that this particular deal wont hurt them much, if not benefit them. > I am more concerned with the danger we have evidence of rather than the one we don't. I'm also more concerned with the dangers we have. That doesn't mean I can't keep an eye out for the dangers which could be. Even if this particular danger hasn't yet manifested, there is clear motivation for it and precedent for it in other markets.
ipaddr 6y ago
The internet destroyed newspapers ability to milk classified ads so we should look the other way when journals get in bed with the newsmakers? Wait until we have overwhelming proof because the system isn't working? But things are working for the Times not so much for regional players. How does this help us?
- slg 6y ago
  >Wait until we have overwhelming proof because the system isn't working? Where did that word "overwhelming" come from? I want us to wait until there is any proof rather than screaming "WOLF!" at a mere shadow. I will highlight this from the originally linked article: >There’s no evidence that the deal directly affects coverage in either the news or editorial departments.
  - ipaddr 6y ago
    The lack of a frontpage story since the deal on the evils of facebook today is proof that they are not publishing the same type of articles. If you are waiting for smoking gun evidence by the time that comes out we won't care. We will be conditioned to accept it as the norm by then. Now is the time to speak up.
tomjen3 6y ago
I have paid for news, even going so far as to buy a printed newspaper, but frankly most of it is worthless: crime reports that doesn't matter, a bunch of opinions by people, etc. Online most are just reprinting Reuters. I would pay for insight that I can use and exclusive (relevant) news, sadly investigative journalism is too expensive.
- smooth_remmy 6y ago
  Have you tried pay for business intelligence reports? Those are still "news" and they have a strong financial incentive to tell the truth
- wolverine876 6y ago
  What news source are you referring to? That doesn't describe most publications, online or offline, such as the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, or the Washington Monthly, where the OP article is published. It doesn't describe many local publications I know of. Certainly there are some publications that fit the description, but we have many, many alternatives.
pessimizer 6y ago
> Vilifying it whenever it happens is potentially dangerous and we should really wait to level these accusations until there is actual evidence of wrongdoing. Everything makes sense except for this. The fact that a business model being broken has caused standards to slip isn't a reason not to point out slipped standards. Also, the fallacy that there will always be some physical evidence of corruption has to die. Every single business or agency I have ever worked for has formal and informal policies about what can be spoken about in media that has a retention policy, especially if they were liable to FOIA requests. The only way you get evidence of that stuff is through making secret recordings (which is why people don't talk on the phone about this stuff either.) It's the appearance of corruption that should be penalized, not the ephemeral evidence of it.
- slg 6y ago
  >The fact that a business model being broken has caused standards to slip isn't a reason not to point out slipped standards. What "standards" are you referring to here? Is it standards of the quality of reporting? Has that actually slipped? Where is the evidence for that? If not, is it truly a problem if the standards of appearance have slipped while there is no actual change in the quality of the work? >Also, the fallacy that there will always be some physical evidence of corruption has to die. Who said the evidence needed to be physical? I don't need a smoking gun email or a covert recording. Verbal testimony is evidence too. Where are the anecdotes from former NYT journalists about being told to kill stories about corporate partners?

by slg 6y ago

imwillofficial 6y ago

“If you don’t take money from companies you have a conflict of interest with, it’s dangerous! Think of the children!” I’m sorry but I may have exaggerated for humorous effect, but your line of reasoning I reject outright. There are ways to do this effectually. This is not that way.

slg 6y ago
This is the New York Times we are talking about. Literally everything is within their reporting purview. Who can they possibly accept money from that won't present a potential conflict of interest?
- imwillofficial 6y ago
  Not freaking the Evil Empire of companies would be a great start.
- ipaddr 6y ago
  NYT provides national coverage. By only accepting and showing regional or local ads this problem can be avoided.
  - slg 6y ago
    National stories are also often regional and local stories. I just pulled up the NYT website. The top story is the Derek Chauvin trial which is certainly also a local story in Minneapolis. The second from the top Opinion piece is about the NYC mayoral race. Does that mean that NYT shouldn't be able to accept any advertising dollars from those markets?
    - ipaddr 6y ago
      What is great about the regional model is the large number of regions which removes the need to not accept from a regiin. In your example Minneapolis is one of many cities the pressure local ad dollars never makes it's way to the editorial board.
- galangalalgol 6y ago
  Their readers and only their readers otherwise no trust should be given to their reporting. News is worth what people pay for it, and if no one is willing to pay for it then we won't get any real reporting.
  - lupire 6y ago
    Sounds you have beef with the readers for not paying enough, and with non-readers who freeload off investigative journalism's social benefits, and with and plagiarizers like Business Insider. Has a major paper ever not been ad-supported?

CivBase 6y ago

I've re-read your post a few times and I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but it keeps reading to me like "bad things have become the normal and people should stop pointing it out". Whether or not there is a better solution, I think there are clearly dangers inherent to monetizing news with ad revenue and I think there is value in keeping a careful eye on them.

slg 6y ago
Yes, I agree that there are dangers. However is there any evidence of the dangers being a reality in this instance? The article directly says there is no evidence. If there is no evidence, why is this story specifically about the NYT and Facebook? There is also danger involved in shaming the NYT for accepting ad money and in turn having them cut coverage in response to decreased revenue. There are plenty of examples of that. I am more concerned with the danger we have evidence of rather than the one we don't.
- CivBase 6y ago
  > However is there any evidence of the dangers being a reality in this instance? Are we specifically talking about a news organization softening its coverage on a sponsor? There aren't any examples which spring directly to mind, but there are countless examples of other organizations doing this. Politicians being bought-out by businesses and lobbyists is nothing new. Platforms like YouTube have crafted and modified content policies specifically to appeal to their sponsors. News organizations benefit from maintaining an appearance of trustworthiness. If they modified their content for the benefit of a sponsor, they would obviously try to be very discrete about it. Is it a stretch to imagine it has or could easily happen? Especially if people stop worrying out it? Other than reputation, is there anything else to counteract that motivation? > If there is no evidence, why is this story specifically about the NYT and Facebook? As for the NYT/Facebook thing in particular, it doesn't strike me as being inherently worse than any other sponsorship deal. I'm not worried about it in particular so much as I am generally concerned with how dependent news is on ad revenue in general. I'm not vouching for the credibility of this story, but I'm worried that your comment is too dismissive of the broader subject. > There is also danger involved in shaming the NYT for accepting ad money and in turn having them cut coverage in response to decreased revenue. There are plenty of examples of that. I don't know about this. I think whenever an organization is dependent on another for revenue, they risk appearing less impartial towards that organization. I see HN comments accusing Mozilla of appearing to be less impartial towards Google because of their relationship all the time, despite Mozilla directly competing with and regularly speaking out against Google. News outlets benefit from an appearance of impartiality and revenue partnership they form with a third-party comes with a risk of damaging that appearance. It's up to the NYT to convince readers they can be trusted with the partnerships they've made. Frankly, I think they've probably built up enough of a reputation that this particular deal wont hurt them much, if not benefit them. > I am more concerned with the danger we have evidence of rather than the one we don't. I'm also more concerned with the dangers we have. That doesn't mean I can't keep an eye out for the dangers which could be. Even if this particular danger hasn't yet manifested, there is clear motivation for it and precedent for it in other markets.

ipaddr 6y ago

The internet destroyed newspapers ability to milk classified ads so we should look the other way when journals get in bed with the newsmakers? Wait until we have overwhelming proof because the system isn't working? But things are working for the Times not so much for regional players. How does this help us?

slg 6y ago
>Wait until we have overwhelming proof because the system isn't working? Where did that word "overwhelming" come from? I want us to wait until there is any proof rather than screaming "WOLF!" at a mere shadow. I will highlight this from the originally linked article: >There’s no evidence that the deal directly affects coverage in either the news or editorial departments.
- ipaddr 6y ago
  The lack of a frontpage story since the deal on the evils of facebook today is proof that they are not publishing the same type of articles. If you are waiting for smoking gun evidence by the time that comes out we won't care. We will be conditioned to accept it as the norm by then. Now is the time to speak up.

tomjen3 6y ago

I have paid for news, even going so far as to buy a printed newspaper, but frankly most of it is worthless: crime reports that doesn't matter, a bunch of opinions by people, etc. Online most are just reprinting Reuters. I would pay for insight that I can use and exclusive (relevant) news, sadly investigative journalism is too expensive.

smooth_remmy 6y ago
Have you tried pay for business intelligence reports? Those are still "news" and they have a strong financial incentive to tell the truth
wolverine876 6y ago
What news source are you referring to? That doesn't describe most publications, online or offline, such as the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, or the Washington Monthly, where the OP article is published. It doesn't describe many local publications I know of. Certainly there are some publications that fit the description, but we have many, many alternatives.

pessimizer 6y ago

> Vilifying it whenever it happens is potentially dangerous and we should really wait to level these accusations until there is actual evidence of wrongdoing. Everything makes sense except for this. The fact that a business model being broken has caused standards to slip isn't a reason not to point out slipped standards. Also, the fallacy that there will always be some physical evidence of corruption has to die. Every single business or agency I have ever worked for has formal and informal policies about what can be spoken about in media that has a retention policy, especially if they were liable to FOIA requests. The only way you get evidence of that stuff is through making secret recordings (which is why people don't talk on the phone about this stuff either.) It's the appearance of corruption that should be penalized, not the ephemeral evidence of it.

slg 6y ago
>The fact that a business model being broken has caused standards to slip isn't a reason not to point out slipped standards. What "standards" are you referring to here? Is it standards of the quality of reporting? Has that actually slipped? Where is the evidence for that? If not, is it truly a problem if the standards of appearance have slipped while there is no actual change in the quality of the work? >Also, the fallacy that there will always be some physical evidence of corruption has to die. Who said the evidence needed to be physical? I don't need a smoking gun email or a covert recording. Verbal testimony is evidence too. Where are the anecdotes from former NYT journalists about being told to kill stories about corporate partners?