But Facebook's acts against the profession of journalism, while less dramatic and immediately obvious, have also been extremely damaging. Google and Facebook have combined to rob journalists of a reliable revenue model by acting as both platform and publisher, scooping up almost all of the advertising money but creating virtually none of the content. Similar trends are happening to content creators across creative industries. But the health of journalism in particular is crucial to the survival or destruction of democracy itself, and to the ability of democracies to self-regulate and foster the shared information environment crucial to holding politicians accountable for solving difficult and pressing problems.
Just this week, Buzzfeed fired dozens of highly talented and acclaimed journalists after acquiring The Huffington Post. The move was part of an ongoing, painful belt-tightening in the world of digital media -- a dark and dispiriting world in which journalists will often actively discourage young people from following in their footsteps. While the flagship New York Times is thriving (in keeping with the winner-take-all effect of much of the rest of the economy), most other medium and small-scale journalism organizations have struggled to survive.
But these hard times are not the result of impersonal market forces. The market for journalism still exists. People still want to read it, and advertisers still want to get in front of them. But Google and Facebook now take almost all of that money, and the public will only tolerate so many media subscriptions. Gone are the days when you could just read Newsweek for free at the dentist's office, or pay for a single random copy of The Economist at the local newsstand. Everything is now about clicks, clicks are driven by social media. Social media takes almost all of the dough -- and both the quality and quantity of journalism suffer as a result.
But as if that were not bad enough, Facebook has also been responsible for lying to journalists about what would provide more of the paltry revenue they were still allowed to keep. Most striking was the "pivot to video" era, in which Facebook allegedly dramatically overstated the potential for revenue from video content:
"Facebook egregiously overstated the success of videos posted to its social network for years, exaggerating the time spent watching them by as much as 900 percent, a new legal filing claims. Citing 80,000 pages of internal Facebook documents, aggrieved advertisers further allege that the company knew about the problem for at least a year and did nothing...
"During the period of purported wrongdoing, from July 2015 to June 2016, journalists and newsroom leaders across the country worked to cover an unprecedented presidential campaign in an information landscape that Facebook was constantly, and erratically, transforming. Even if, as Facebook argues, it did not knowingly inflate metrics, it set up new and fast-changing incentives for video that altered the online ad market as a whole. As media companies desperately tried to do what Facebook wanted, many made the disastrous decision to "pivot to video," laying off reporters and editors by the dozen. And when views plunged and video's poor return on investment became more apparent, some companies pivoted back, firing video producers by the dozens."
Both Buzzfeed and The Huffington Post were particularly hard hit by the pivot to video. Already declining somewhat in esteem for writing clickbait pieces to survive in the new media environment, both jumped headfirst into the video model at Facebook's urging, then suffered the consequences from so doing. The result was devastating for both, and now 47 more good journalists are out of work.
The damage of social media algorithms (and Facebook's in particular) to democracy and to journalism must be confronted directly. Despite having banned the worst conspiracy theory actors like QAnon promoters after international uproar, the companies remain unwilling or unable to do something about the underlying problem. That's because doing something about the problem would require sharing more revenue and stymying engagement.
Regulating this space is essential for the survival of democracy and a free press. Possible solutions range from requiring alternative revenue sharing models, to regulation of content algorithms to maximize quality content over raw engagement, to banning targeted advertising altogether. The debate over whether to treat social media companies as platforms or publishers continues to rage. There are good arguments on both sides, but as long as they are able to take the advantages of both while accepting the responsibilities of neither, it's clear that we will get as users and consumers neither the platforms nor the content we need.
Back in 2018 venture capitalist Roger McNamee wrote a fantastic piece here at The Monthly offering eight suggestions for dealing with the problem, ranging from anti-monopoly legislation to revising end-user license agreements to forcing greater transparency both about advertising and algorithms. All of this and much more should be on the table.
The end result of doing nothing will be a world full of authoritarian despots using hateful disinformation to maintain power while driving legitimate journalism into extinction.
Democratic governments around the world must take action while they still have the self-governing power to do so.
Next Page 1 | 2
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
