Tensions ran high at a Facebook meeting last week where the company sat down with a handful of news editors ahead its testimony before Congress today.
However, not everyone was happy with the list of invitees, one of whom included Daily Caller publisher Neil Patel.
BuzzFeed Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith was irked the outlet would even be represented at the meeting, his frustration being echoed by HuffPost Editor-in-Chief Lydia Polgreen, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Both expressed concern that the social media giant was treating the Daily Caller as a legitimate news outlet in an effort to be politically neutral.
Smith even took the matter up with Patel directly, clarifying his problems with him in a leaked email tweeted by BuzzFeed’s own media reporter, Steven Perlberg.
How do we respond to tragedy? That question is never far from the work of journalists, and Friday’s Annapolis Capital Gazette assault only made it more intimate, with journalists becoming one with the story they’ve covered time and again.
Numerous journalists responded to the murder of five of their own by restating the truths of local journalism. The humorist Dave Barry (“Sorry, I’m not feeling funny today — my heart aches for slain journalists“) captured it as well as anyone:
“Each new election is a test.” The Washington Post’s Elizabeth Dwoskin took a peek at Facebook’s fact-checking efforts ahead of the Mexican election. (Another big problem in Mexico around the election: Fake news on WhatsApp.)
In this case, the most problematic posts are not coming from outside the country but from within it. “The hardest part is where to draw the line between a legitimate political campaign and domestic information operations,” Facebook security executive Guy Rosen said. “It’s a balance we need to figure out how to strike.”
In a talk for security experts in May, Facebook security chief Alex Stamos called such domestic disinformation operations the “biggest growth category” for election-related threats that the company is confronting. These groups, he said, are copying Russian operatives’ tactics to “manipulate their own political sphere, often for the benefit of the ruling party.”
This area is also the
American news organizations have been reluctant to share just how badly they’re doing on Facebook now. Anecdotal reports of decreased Facebook traffic trickled out through 2017; then, this past January, Facebook announced that it was drastically changing the News Feed to prioritize content from friends, family, and groups over content from brands like news publishers.
Still, most publishers have publicly claimed they’re taking the changes in stride, eager for the opportunity to diversify their traffic sources — something they were already doing anyway, of course! Most of the stories we’ve heard about quittingFacebook after precipitous traffic drops have come from non-U.S. sites.
Here, however, are some real American numbers, from Slate, which Slate’s Will Oremusreported Wednesday:
Slate — yes, the publication you’re reading right now — got more than 85 million clicks that originated from external sites and apps in January 2017 alone. Almost a third of
Yesterday, Gizmodo Media’s Splinter published a story that included the cell phone number of Trump advisor Stephen Miller. (“He’s a busy guy, but maybe you can get ahold of him long enough to have a productive discussion.”) People started tweeting out links to the story. And almost immediately, those accounts started getting suspended.
In fact, just about anyone who linked to the article, tweeted a screenshot of it, or published the phone number had their Twitter account locked down for 12 hours. (Twitter PR: “We are aware of this and are taking appropriate action on content that violates our Terms of Service.”)
Twitter indeed has a policy against revealing other people’s personal information, but this raised two questions. First, Twitter’s speed dealing with these tweets seemed at odds with the many other times it has seemed slow (or unwilling) to police hate speech and abuse on its platform. Continue reading "News is sometimes a casualty when Facebook and Twitter try to clean up their platforms"
Gather round for this history of the troubled, not totally requited relationship between news publishers and powerful technology companies like Google and Facebook.
No publisher wants to be reliant on a platform that isn’t within their control, but few want to miss out, either — whether it’s on free(ish) money from Facebook to produce exclusive videos, or trainings from Google, or the promise of making money from readers subscribing on Apple News.
“Platforms don’t always reward the best behavior,” one publisher told the researchers at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University in a new report on platforms and publishers, out Thursday. “So you can end up in a rabbit hole where you look at your product in the rearview mirror and think, ‘Is that what I intended to create?’”
The 23,721-word report, which is the culmination two years of interviews, publishing data, and tracking of