WP: How Facebook can influence the news, not just share it - No way to fact check 'trending data' or Any Facebook Data...
How Facebook can influence the news, not just share it
By Callum Borchers May 22 at 8:00 AM
The big media-technology story of the moment is about the
news in Facebook’s “trending” box. But what about the news stories that are
influenced by what’s in that box or in the other places where Facebook tells
journalists what people care about?
Conservatives have been up in arms since Gizmodo reported
last week that some Facebook workers who curate the network’s trending news
section allow their own (mostly liberal) biases to influence which topics in
politics — and everything else — qualify for promotion in a special box on
users’ homepages. The concern is that right-leaning views might be suppressed
by a technology giant that wields tremendous power over what is presented to
some 167 million Americans as buzzy and newsworthy.
Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg quickly denied
censoring content but said he and his company “take this report very seriously
and are conducting a full investigation to ensure our teams upheld the
integrity of this product.”
All of this — the Gizmodo article, the reaction, the
investigation — is important. But it’s a bit narrow. Facebook doesn’t merely
have the ability to dictate which already-written stories merit inclusion in
its own trending news section; in some cases, the social media juggernaut can
also influence which stories journalists wind up writing — and the kinds of
questions they ask — in the first place.
Facebook's trending news box showed what users were
talking about on Thursday afternoon.
Last fall, the social network launched a reporting tool
called Signal that is designed to help journalists “monitor what topics are
trending on Facebook” and “find stories as they grow in importance.” Poynter
described possible applications in an article about the rollout in September:
In advance of today’s launch, Facebook made Signal
available to several beta testers. Vox.com Engagement Editor Allison Rockey was
among the journalists who got a sneak peek at the tool, and she says Vox will
continue to use Signal for both audience engagement and newsgathering.
“It’s very important for us to give context and
background to the biggest news stories of the day,” Rockey said. “Our editors
are incredibly interested in the questions and conversation that people are
having outside of newsrooms and outside of the Beltway. Having insight into
what people are discussing and have questions about on Facebook is really
helpful.”
It is really helpful — so long as the data is legit. And,
to be clear, there is no evidence that it’s not.
Robert D’Onofrio, Facebook’s director of data
communications, said in a statement that the trending topics team at the center
of the Gizmodo report is not the same unit that tells journalists — such as the
presidential debate moderators who have cited Facebook data in their questions
— which political subjects are driving conversations on the social network.
“The political conversation data Facebook shares — like
we did with broadcast partners during multiple presidential primary debates —
is completely separate from Trending Topics,” D’Onofrio said. “A different team
works to quantify and analyze which candidates and issues people talk about
most on Facebook before, during or after a debate. These data sets are an
unaltered, aggregated rankings based on the number of unique people liking,
posting, commenting on and sharing content about a particular subject or
candidate.”
One big challenge for media outlets is that there’s no
way to fact-check Facebook data because it’s proprietary. No one but Facebook
knows what’s really trending on Facebook.
The inability to authenticate Facebook data means
newsrooms have to think hard about how heavily they lean on it. They also have
to consider how — amid intense competition for Internet traffic — the desire to
produce viral content might color editorial judgments. Many news sites draw
large portions of their audiences from Facebook, so the temptation is to try to
create content that seems likely to be shared and liked over and over.
Upworthy built a business on this strategy. Then, when
Facebook changed its news feed algorithm a couple years ago in what was widely
viewed as a crackdown on clickbait, Upworthy’s traffic declined sharply. It was
a high-profile illustration of how a media company can become a slave to
Facebook — and a reminder that the reputation of the news media is on the line
here, too.
So there is a shared responsibility where the potential
for abuse exists. Facebook could theoretically nudge journalists toward the
topics it wants covered by showing those topics to be trending when, in fact,
they are not.
For example: One source in the Gizmodo report claimed
that “the Black Lives Matter movement was … injected into Facebook’s trending
news module,” even though it actually wasn’t trending at the time, according to
numerical metrics. If true, the immediate consequence was that more people were
exposed to existing news about Black Lives Matter. The possible long-term
consequence was that journalists produced more news about Black Lives Matter
because they believed a ton of people were interested.
“Nothing says you shouldn’t inject certain topics,” said
Jennifer Grygiel, a communications professor at Syracuse University who
specializes in social media. “Journalism certainly isn't just what people are
talking about the most; it’s what people need to know. So, sure, inject topics.
But be transparent if you do.”
Zuckerberg said in a statement last week that the social
network has “rigorous guidelines that do not permit the prioritization of one
viewpoint over another or the suppression of political perspectives.”
“We have found no evidence that [the Gizmodo] report is
true,” he added. “If we find anything against our principles, you have my
commitment that we will take additional steps to address it.”
The Gizmodo article, based on interviews with unnamed
former contractors, noted “there is no evidence that Facebook management
mandated or was even aware of any political bias at work.”
Still, facing a PR problem, Zuckerberg addressed the
charge of ideological screening by employees in an off-the-record meeting
Wednesday. He met with about 20 prominent conservatives, including media
figures such as radio host Glenn Beck, CNN commentator S.E. Cupp and Townhall
general manager Jonathan Garthwaite.
Facebook’s role in shaping the news agenda has been on
display this election season during presidential debates. At a Republican
debate last fall, Fox Business moderator Neil Cavuto asked for the candidates’
positions on the minimum wage. At another debate in January, Cavuto’s
co-moderator, Maria Bartiromo, brought up gun control. And at a third debate in
March, Fox News’s Bret Baier asked why the GOP’s White House contenders hadn’t
talked more about the water crisis in Flint, Mich.
All three questions — along with several others posed in
the primary debates — had something in common that was mentioned live on the
air: Facebook data showing the subjects they addressed were popular on the
social network.
A spokeswoman for the Fox cable channels — alone among
the GOP debate media sponsors in citing Facebook trending data — said journalists
“chose the topics and only used Facebook for supplementary data. We stand by
the topics discussed in both debates on Fox News Channel and Fox Business.”
In other words, Facebook didn’t tell Fox to ask about the
minimum wage, gun control or the Flint water crisis; it simply provided data
confirming those were, indeed, topics that interested many people.
Nevertheless, the inclusion of Facebook trending data in
questions posed to presidential candidates — with millions of voters watching
on television — is proof of the high stakes. Moderators relied, in part, on
Facebook figures to inform those candidates and voters about the priorities of
the electorate.
If journalists are going to depend on Facebook to tell
them what people care about, then they’ll want to feel assured that these data
are accurate or, if subjective, at least openly so. Which is why there is so
much on the line.
In other words, the issue is much bigger than which
topics do or do not appear in a little box on your phone or computer screen.
Comments
Post a Comment