Facebook Forces NYT to Quietly Delete Unflattering Reference to Sheryl Sandberg
Facebook Forces NYT to
Quietly Delete Unflattering Reference to Sheryl Sandberg
by Colin Kalmbacher | 4:42 pm, March 20th, 2018The New York Times apparently
offers powerful third parties the ability to edit away–that is, to delete from
the internet–unfavorable coverage appearing in the paper of record’s online
edition.
One such entity afforded the privilege is
Facebook. And this has legal experts raising antitrust concerns.
Last
night, the New York Times broke a very big story regarding the pending departure
of Alex Stamos from Facebook. Stamos is currently the
company’s chief information security officer and the official largely
responsible for tracking down the Russian troll farm influence and illicit
campaign-related advertising facilitated through the Facebook platform. His
duties have since been reassigned.
The Times‘ original story made
reference to Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg–and mentioned her “consternation” at Stamos’
efforts to shepherd the tech giant towards being more transparent about Russian
trolls’ electoral interference. Here’s the original paragraph in question:
Mr. Stamos had been a
strong advocate inside the company for investigation and disclosing Russian
activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of other top executives,
including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief operating officer,
according to the current and former employees, who asked not to be identified
discussing internal matters.
This
morning, however, readers noticed the sole reference to Sandberg’s displeasure
with Stamos’ transparency efforts–viz. Russia in particular–was wiped clean off
the ether. Now, Sandberg’s name and the story’s only reference to her alleged
role in frustrating Stamos’ attempts to highlight and root out Russian troll influence
on the platform are gone because someone at the New York Timesreplaced the entire
sentence.
Instead
of an obvious reference to Facebook COO Sandberg, the New York Times‘ readership will
note a vague reference to the fact that Stamos’ anti-Russian transparency
efforts were “met with resistance by colleagues.” There’s also no longer any
explicit mention that Sandberg was one of those colleagues in the story. In
other words, readers will now see nothing to suggest Sandberg had a problem
with Stamos’ work related to Russia.
Justin Hendrix with the NYC Media Lab noted
the believed-to-be import of the since-altered sentence-graf in a tweet sent Monday at 3:27 p.m. He wrote:
Sheryl led the
cover-up? “Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for
investigating and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the
consternation of other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg…”
A
discussion regarding the decision soon began on Twitter after Kurt Walters, the campaign
director for Demand
Progress, noted the deletion had occurred without a correction or
clarification being issued by the New York Times.
Three
reporters worked on the New York Times story regarding Stamos’ eventual
ouster: Nicole Perlroth, Sheera Frenkel and Scott Shane. Walters and Law&Crime subsequently
reached out to each reporter who worked on the story. Neither Frenkel nor Shane
responded to repeat requests for comment.
Perlroth,
however, confirmed that the change occurred after Facebook’s public relations
team reached out to the New York Times–some time after the story was published.
In
later comments, Perlroth downplayed the change, stating that the New York Times “regularly”
engages in such practices. Perloth also defended the newer version of the
article as substantially similar.
Law&Crime reached out to Facebook’s public relations firm for
further comment and confirmation but no response was forthcoming at the time of
publication.
To
be clear, the New York Times‘ original reporting does not appear to be
incorrect nor is there any indication this is the case. Indeed, Perlroth
vehemently disagreed when asked if any of the Times’ reporting was incorrect.
Additionally,
other reputable outlets–like tech publication Recode—reported on the specificity of the Sandberg-Stamos disagreement. Same goes for Quartz. And Reuters.
Media watch dogs and corporate concentration
experts immediately seized upon the glaring shift in coverage.
Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Markets Institute who
focuses on anti-trust and monopoly issues tweeted:
Jeff Hauser, Executive Director
of the Revolving Door Project, at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, is a noted
anti-trust expert. In comments provided to Law&Crime, Hauser explained the anti-trust and
monopoly-like implications of Facebook’s muscling the New York Times. He said:
[A]t the same time as Facebook and the New York Times compete, Facebook
is also an essential platform for the New York Times to reach readers, especially on phones.
The New York Times— in fact, all
advertising funded media — faces risks every time they report on Facebook in a
way that reflects badly on Facebook. No company should be allowed to be as
influential as Facebook while holding so much power over the media that a free
society relies on to scrutinize powerful institutions. Facebook’s ability to
flex its muscles over even the legendary New York Times should scare us about what they can do
to smaller outlets contemplating negative coverage of Facebook practices.
When
asked as to whether current law could foreseeably deal with the potential
trust-busting of a social media platform like Facebook, Hauser noted, “The
likelihood that Facebook can intimidate the New York Times underscores the need to break up
Facebook even if it is not charging advertisers or consumers provably
‘excessive’ prices.”
Hauser cited to both the Sherman Antitrust
Act and the Clayton Act as legal sources of authority that government and
regulators could rely upon to hold tech giants more accountable–or even to
break them up.
As for what that would take aside from
statutory authority? Hauser said, “An executive branch dedicated to setting
forth new interpretations of those statutes consistent with their explicit and
historical meanings could initiate a new wave of ‘trust busting.’ It’s a matter
of newly restored will, not newly passed law.”
Editor’s note: The web archived version of the
original New York Times story, “Facebook Security Chief Said to
Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation” is available here. Links to images of the changes are available here. Additionally, this article has been
edited to reflect the proper spellings of names.
Comments
Post a Comment