7 ms·

"Editor's note: Facebook is among NPR's financial supporters and since publishing her book, The Art of Screen Time, Kamenetz's husband took a job with Facebook.

by jsean2004 5y ago

"Editor's note: Facebook is among NPR's financial supporters and since publishing her book, The Art of Screen Time, Kamenetz's husband took a job with Facebook. He works in an unrelated division."

Forbo 5y ago
Ouch. I missed this when I was reading it. Ugh, trying to navigate what is factually based and what is (potentially manufactured?) knee-jerk outrage is getting exhausting. Then there's the possibility that this piece is a manufactured wet blanket trying to douse the dumpster fire of negative reporting surrounding FB.
elliekelly 5y ago
How is this not a conflict of interest that would preclude this particular journalist from covering this particular story? Facebook pays a portion of her bills. She owns Facebook stock. Her husband’s career at Facebook (and beyond) could be derailed by what she writes about Facebook. She has a material and vested interest in portraying Facebook in the best light possible. At the very least an editors note disclosing such a substantial conflict ought to be at the top of the page, not the bottom. This really colors my opinion of NPR’s editorial and ethical standards.
- duud 5y ago
  Is it more of conflict of interest than the whistleblower potentially being entitled to a multi billion dollar commission from the SEC? Because that's barely been mentioned in any of the negative articles. https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower
  - elliekelly 5y ago
    What is the conflict? She only gets paid if her claims are substantiated and lead to a substantial enforcement action. And perhaps I’m a bit too in the weeds on this sort of thing but when I read “whistleblower” I assume there is some avenue for remuneration either from the SEC or a qui tam suit or some other private right of action. Why would anyone blow their whole career up to bring fraud to light if they’re going to be financially hung out to dry? I think most people view whistleblower protections as aligning the interests of the public and the whistleblower.
    - duud 5y ago
      Edward Snowden didn't need hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to do the right thing. Of course there should be some kind of compensation for potential loss of income but offering 50-1000x someone's annual income (10-30% of the fine) creates an incentive to present the facts in the way that maximizes the payday rather than the public good.
      - shadowfox 5y ago
        > creates an incentive to present the facts in the way that maximizes the payday rather than the public good Sure, it may create an incentive to do so. However, the facts must prove to be true and enforcement action must happen before the payout happens. So, however exaggerated the claims being made by the whistleblower in question, if it is not borne out by facts and substantiation, they are not getting anything for it. I am not sure I see an issue with that.
  - zwaps 5y ago
    To answer your question, yes, it is more of a conflict of interest. A journalist is tasked with writing truthful articles that do not mislead the public. This holds at least for those who portray themselves as such (e.g., by making arguments appealing to our sense of truth or reason; i.e., anyone whose opinion we should at all value). In this case, however, the journalist is directly or indirectly paid by Facebook to spin the situation. As such, this is a conflict of interest (the integrity of journalism in particular being in the interest of the public). The whistleblower must provide actionable (in court) and therefore truthful information. Such information was, by definition, kept secret from regulation authorities who are tasked with enforcing societal rules. Rewarding this the whistleblower is not a conflict of interest. I mean, you could construe the wordings to say that the conflict is between loyalty towards the firm and loyalty to society / laws, and if this is a meaningful and acceptable rather than absurd contrast, then you are probably Elon Musk. For everyone else, it is hard to see a conflict of interest here.
- octodog 5y ago
  Having a potential, perceived or realised conflict of interest doesn't stop you from covering a topic or giving your opinion. It should be advertised so that people consuming your opinion are aware and so can take it into account. This is exactly what NPR and the journalist has done here.
- piggybox 5y ago
  Nobody says it's not a conflict of interest. The same conflict can be said to all massive media reporting FB bad news, as they compete in the big pool of ads money, right?
JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
Wow. I thought I was safer than that believing this article, since it was NPR.
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  IMO NPR isn't a particularly good quality source. I'd prob put it below even the NYT, and far below, say, The Atlantic
  - Forbo 5y ago
    Ad Fontes puts NPR above both of those in terms of factual reporting. Then again, maybe Ad Fontes has their own biases. I don't know. I'm not an expert in this stuff, so I typically try to rely on those who appear to be. Maybe I'm just following the wrong piper. https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Media-Bias-Chart-7.0_January-2021-Licensed-Copy.pdf https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Media-B...
    - wutbrodo 5y ago
      That axis doesn't say they're better at factual reporting, at least not in the top couple buckets. Look at the category that the Atlantic and the NYT are in: it says "mix of fact reporting and analysis". That says nothing about the actual quality of reporting. In NPR's case, it just leads to the Vox problem of thinking you're simply "explaining the facts" while being completely unaware of the biases, blindspots, and inherent poor analysis you are smuggling into your articles. (For an example of a source that has the same goal but does a better job, see something like PBS Newshour. They've got a pretty thorough leftward bias, but it doesn't compromise the quality of their reporting nearly as severely as it does NPR's). The one surprise here is the claim that The Atlantic is farther left than the other sources mentioned, as far left as MSNBC. I still remember them as the first mainstream source brsve enough to break the taboo of acknowledging that the lunatic illiberalism sweeping the country had a solid foothold on the left too, after a couple years of being shocked by the phenomenon and the media's silence on it. They continue to publish taboo-breaking analysis; I can't think of any analogue the NYT to Bruenig or Friesersdorf.
throwaway908 5y ago
You can read the author’s defense of herself on her Twitter: https://twitter.com/anya1anya/status/1446282545700691969 https://twitter.com/anya1anya/status/1446282545700691969 “I've been covering kids + tech since ~2007. The Art of Screen Time pubbed in 2018. I've spoken on these topics at Aspen Ideas, Atlantic Fest, Apple, Google, SXSW. Collaborated with Mozilla. Adam's startup was acquired by Facebook in 2019. He works in hardware.”
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
paulpauper 5y ago
Let's assume the author wrote the biggest fluff piece about Facebook imaginable. how much do you think it would affect the stock? a penny? Focusing on conflict of interest is just another lifehack to dismiss someone's argument without having to actually argue against its merits.
dan-robertson 5y ago
Note the difference between this coverage and e.g. NYT’s where there is little mention of all the Facebook trackers attached to their privacy project articles or the fact that they are so reliant on Facebook for income, and also so threatened by the company in the longer term.

"Editor's note: Facebook is among NPR's financial supporters and since publishing her book, The Art of Screen Time, Kamenetz's husband took a job with Facebook. He works in an unrelated division."

Forbo 5y ago

Ouch. I missed this when I was reading it. Ugh, trying to navigate what is factually based and what is (potentially manufactured?) knee-jerk outrage is getting exhausting. Then there's the possibility that this piece is a manufactured wet blanket trying to douse the dumpster fire of negative reporting surrounding FB.

elliekelly 5y ago

How is this not a conflict of interest that would preclude this particular journalist from covering this particular story? Facebook pays a portion of her bills. She owns Facebook stock. Her husband’s career at Facebook (and beyond) could be derailed by what she writes about Facebook. She has a material and vested interest in portraying Facebook in the best light possible. At the very least an editors note disclosing such a substantial conflict ought to be at the top of the page, not the bottom. This really colors my opinion of NPR’s editorial and ethical standards.

duud 5y ago
Is it more of conflict of interest than the whistleblower potentially being entitled to a multi billion dollar commission from the SEC? Because that's barely been mentioned in any of the negative articles. https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower
- elliekelly 5y ago
  What is the conflict? She only gets paid if her claims are substantiated and lead to a substantial enforcement action. And perhaps I’m a bit too in the weeds on this sort of thing but when I read “whistleblower” I assume there is some avenue for remuneration either from the SEC or a qui tam suit or some other private right of action. Why would anyone blow their whole career up to bring fraud to light if they’re going to be financially hung out to dry? I think most people view whistleblower protections as aligning the interests of the public and the whistleblower.
  - duud 5y ago
    Edward Snowden didn't need hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to do the right thing. Of course there should be some kind of compensation for potential loss of income but offering 50-1000x someone's annual income (10-30% of the fine) creates an incentive to present the facts in the way that maximizes the payday rather than the public good.
    - shadowfox 5y ago
      > creates an incentive to present the facts in the way that maximizes the payday rather than the public good Sure, it may create an incentive to do so. However, the facts must prove to be true and enforcement action must happen before the payout happens. So, however exaggerated the claims being made by the whistleblower in question, if it is not borne out by facts and substantiation, they are not getting anything for it. I am not sure I see an issue with that.
- zwaps 5y ago
  To answer your question, yes, it is more of a conflict of interest. A journalist is tasked with writing truthful articles that do not mislead the public. This holds at least for those who portray themselves as such (e.g., by making arguments appealing to our sense of truth or reason; i.e., anyone whose opinion we should at all value). In this case, however, the journalist is directly or indirectly paid by Facebook to spin the situation. As such, this is a conflict of interest (the integrity of journalism in particular being in the interest of the public). The whistleblower must provide actionable (in court) and therefore truthful information. Such information was, by definition, kept secret from regulation authorities who are tasked with enforcing societal rules. Rewarding this the whistleblower is not a conflict of interest. I mean, you could construe the wordings to say that the conflict is between loyalty towards the firm and loyalty to society / laws, and if this is a meaningful and acceptable rather than absurd contrast, then you are probably Elon Musk. For everyone else, it is hard to see a conflict of interest here.
octodog 5y ago
Having a potential, perceived or realised conflict of interest doesn't stop you from covering a topic or giving your opinion. It should be advertised so that people consuming your opinion are aware and so can take it into account. This is exactly what NPR and the journalist has done here.
piggybox 5y ago
Nobody says it's not a conflict of interest. The same conflict can be said to all massive media reporting FB bad news, as they compete in the big pool of ads money, right?

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago

Wow. I thought I was safer than that believing this article, since it was NPR.

wutbrodo 5y ago
IMO NPR isn't a particularly good quality source. I'd prob put it below even the NYT, and far below, say, The Atlantic
- Forbo 5y ago
  Ad Fontes puts NPR above both of those in terms of factual reporting. Then again, maybe Ad Fontes has their own biases. I don't know. I'm not an expert in this stuff, so I typically try to rely on those who appear to be. Maybe I'm just following the wrong piper. https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Media-Bias-Chart-7.0_January-2021-Licensed-Copy.pdf https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Media-B...
  - wutbrodo 5y ago
    That axis doesn't say they're better at factual reporting, at least not in the top couple buckets. Look at the category that the Atlantic and the NYT are in: it says "mix of fact reporting and analysis". That says nothing about the actual quality of reporting. In NPR's case, it just leads to the Vox problem of thinking you're simply "explaining the facts" while being completely unaware of the biases, blindspots, and inherent poor analysis you are smuggling into your articles. (For an example of a source that has the same goal but does a better job, see something like PBS Newshour. They've got a pretty thorough leftward bias, but it doesn't compromise the quality of their reporting nearly as severely as it does NPR's). The one surprise here is the claim that The Atlantic is farther left than the other sources mentioned, as far left as MSNBC. I still remember them as the first mainstream source brsve enough to break the taboo of acknowledging that the lunatic illiberalism sweeping the country had a solid foothold on the left too, after a couple years of being shocked by the phenomenon and the media's silence on it. They continue to publish taboo-breaking analysis; I can't think of any analogue the NYT to Bruenig or Friesersdorf.

throwaway908 5y ago

You can read the author’s defense of herself on her Twitter: https://twitter.com/anya1anya/status/1446282545700691969 https://twitter.com/anya1anya/status/1446282545700691969 “I've been covering kids + tech since ~2007. The Art of Screen Time pubbed in 2018. I've spoken on these topics at Aspen Ideas, Atlantic Fest, Apple, Google, SXSW. Collaborated with Mozilla. Adam's startup was acquired by Facebook in 2019. He works in hardware.”

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

paulpauper 5y ago

Let's assume the author wrote the biggest fluff piece about Facebook imaginable. how much do you think it would affect the stock? a penny? Focusing on conflict of interest is just another lifehack to dismiss someone's argument without having to actually argue against its merits.

dan-robertson 5y ago

Note the difference between this coverage and e.g. NYT’s where there is little mention of all the Facebook trackers attached to their privacy project articles or the fact that they are so reliant on Facebook for income, and also so threatened by the company in the longer term.