5 ms·

> 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 o

> 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.

slg 6y ago
>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. This specifically is a great jumping off point to highlight why this is less of a problem in journalism. In politics, the person accepting the money is the same one who is acting. The politician shows up the oil industry fundraiser one day and is voting on climate change regulation the next. Bias will exist there even if it isn't conscious or intentional. It works differently in journalism. From the outside we see the NYT as a single entity, but that isn't the case from the inside. There is a strict firewall between the business and editorial staffs at any reputable news org. The people who sell the ads or count the money are not the same people who choose what is covered or write the stories (this can change at smaller outlets and blogging changed some of this online, but the basic premise still holds). Anyone who has been to journalism schools has been taught the importance of this separation. Most journalists feel very strongly about this separation and they often speak out when it is violated.
- CivBase 6y ago
  That is an excellent point. I wasn't aware there was a distinct separation like that. If a news outlet can demonstrate that their publishing arm is organizationally unaffected by influence from their business arm, that would alleviate a lot of my concern about the ad revenue model. I do think it will fall on the organizations themselves to demonstrate and advertise that separation, though. If they can't/won't do that, I don't have much sympathy for any loss of reputation which comes from deals like this.

slg 6y ago

>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. This specifically is a great jumping off point to highlight why this is less of a problem in journalism. In politics, the person accepting the money is the same one who is acting. The politician shows up the oil industry fundraiser one day and is voting on climate change regulation the next. Bias will exist there even if it isn't conscious or intentional. It works differently in journalism. From the outside we see the NYT as a single entity, but that isn't the case from the inside. There is a strict firewall between the business and editorial staffs at any reputable news org. The people who sell the ads or count the money are not the same people who choose what is covered or write the stories (this can change at smaller outlets and blogging changed some of this online, but the basic premise still holds). Anyone who has been to journalism schools has been taught the importance of this separation. Most journalists feel very strongly about this separation and they often speak out when it is violated.

CivBase 6y ago
That is an excellent point. I wasn't aware there was a distinct separation like that. If a news outlet can demonstrate that their publishing arm is organizationally unaffected by influence from their business arm, that would alleviate a lot of my concern about the ad revenue model. I do think it will fall on the organizations themselves to demonstrate and advertise that separation, though. If they can't/won't do that, I don't have much sympathy for any loss of reputation which comes from deals like this.