Blog Post

Why you can no longer expect that the news will find you

Stay on Top of Emerging Technology Trends

Get updates impacting your industry from our GigaOm Research Community
Join the Community!

One of the more frustrating things about turning into a cranky old editor (although to be honest I was That Guy when I was 25) has been watching a generation of young people embrace the notion that they don’t have to be savvy news consumers: that any news that is truly important will be circulated by their inner circles through social media. But after digesting the various takes on the Facebook emotional-manipulation experiment this week, which was arguably the biggest story of a slow week in a tech world, the unacknowledged reality that people who expect to discover the true world through search or their social feeds are subject to the whims of opaque corporations is really starting to trouble me.

Most people know that Facebook manipulates their News Feed, and a lot of that manipulation is not at all noteworthy (do you really need to see the 892nd picture of the toddler born to the girl who sat next to you in 10th grade biology?). Go ahead, wander over to Facebook and refresh your news feed eight or ten times in a row: you’ll get a different series of updates at the top of that feed nearly every time.

But when Facebook starts altering the content of your feed based on an emotional social graph it wishes to feed you, that makes a lot of people sit up and take notice. And in an era in which Facebook is one of the largest sources of referral traffic to traffic-starved online publishers struggling to break even in an era of digital pennies, the ramifications of those alterations have a clear impact on how you get your news and the type of news you get.

It’s like this guy doesn’t even know what his company is doing to a generation of digital news publishers.

You’re not just the product, you’re the subject

There are immense benefits from our modern shift to digital publishing; the speed, the global reach, the accountability, and the ability to incorporate text, video, images, and interactive graphics into a single report. But the vast amount of digital content now available means that distribution of that product to end users is controlled by a collection of third-party web companies that owe their relevance to their ability to aggregate and organize that content. I’m talking about Google, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, Yahoo and Bing (kind of), and a few others.

The new Newsfeed redesign
The new Newsfeed redesign

The public’s need to be informed is a secondary concern to these companies. Their foremost instinct is to keep their users engaged with their web sites, and they are clearly willing to manipulate the presentation of that content in order to surface the things that they believe will drive engagement.

Google is one of the world’s most valuable companies because its mission “to organize the world’s information and make it accessible” arrived at a time when the explosion in web content generated by the rise of digital publishing started to become unmanageable. But it often concludes that its own information is better than information provided by others that lack its reach, and it is cramming more and more paid advertisements into the top of its search results pages. In Europe, it’s not at all clear how Google will deal with the notion of “the right to be forgotten,” which no matter if you think it’s a good idea or a bad idea is going to change the number of links it surfaces. And while Google loves to tell everyone that its ranking systems are algorithmic-driven pure expressions of relevancy, there are people behind those systems who make conscious decisions about what to promote and what to demote based on criteria they rarely reveal.

Facebook’s ascension has much to do with the fact that it’s a central hub to the people you love, a digital way of staying in touch with family and friends in a way the modern offline world makes very difficult. But Facebook is even more of a black box than Google, and that’s particularly troubling given the spread of social media as a news distribution channel. News organizations with better reputations tend to have their content shared more often through social channels, according to a 2012 study, but if no one sees the story you shared because Facebook thought your friends would prefer a list of celebrities that look like dogs, it doesn’t really matter.

By and large, these two companies control the relevancy of digital information in the 21st century in a way that even if you believe them to be benevolent dictators should give you pause. We’ve paid a price for outsourcing our online content consumption decisions to companies run by decidedly outside-the-mainstream men like Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg; I’d pay money to listen to those dudes attempt to explain the concept of the soul. And what’s even more frustrating is that they actually have good reason to keep their decision-making processes a secret; if they told us how it all worked, thousands of charlatans would immediately game those systems as to make each company’s services a joke.

You are what you read

There might come a day when we look at Google and Facebook the same way we do Comcast and AT&T, the bogeymen we currently love to hate when it comes to identifying the powers that control our content experiences. Sure, the web companies surface a much wider variety of material than your basic cable company, but they still control what you see when you fire up their services in ways they are unwilling to explain fully.

Google search engine_MoneyBlogNewz

The thing that gets me is that we’ve become such informed consumers in so many other areas of our lives. We buy organic vegetables, we obsess over miles-per-gallon in our prospective cars, and we demand that our artificially valuable gems weren’t touched by desperate violent gangs before they reach our fingers. Yet we assume that the information being presented to us by the content aggregators of our day is the information we really need to see.

We get this when it comes to our entertainment choices: there’s a reason you pay for HBO, you pay for content like Breaking Bad and Mad Men on cable channels like AMC, you pay for books, and you pay for magazines. And at some point, you’re probably going to have to pay for quality digital news or all you’re going to get is mass-market drivel that is manipulated to make you consume more of it. At the very least, you need to form a direct relationship with the free web sources you trust: subscribe to their newsletters, sign up for their direct feeds, or follow individual authors that you know you can rely upon for the information you need to survive and thrive in the information era.

File this away for claim chowder: by 2020, we’ll laugh at the notion that at one point we expected quality news and information organizations on the web to sustain themselves by competing for the attention of algorithms. Because if we haven’t figured that out, we’ll be living in a world in which those algorithms — which are written for the benefit of advertisers, not readers — completely control the presentation of news and information across our world.

And if I’m still trying to run a tech news site in that world…

Featured photo courtesy of Scholastic.

14 Responses to “Why you can no longer expect that the news will find you”

  1. noneone

    The good part of this story is that we always have options to look for. I choose not to use Google anymore (I’m very satisfied with DuckDuckGo) and I canceled my Facebook account (now I’m using the DIaspora open source community driven social network). About the control of the news by companies, nothing really new here. Has being done by centuries by the people in power positions. I recommend the book: “Media Control, Second Edition: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda by Noam Chomsky”, the economist that predicted the American crash of 2008

  2. This is a really good article. It reminded me a lot to what noosfeer is trying to accomplish with their politics of “democratizing the web”.

  3. David J Chisnell

    The problem is even if you pay for the News you expect to be manipulated now, Only the Faithful failed to Notice the New York Times attempt to bury John Edwards affair, Jeremiah Wright, or Kermit Gosnell stories. Even now their editorials talk about about Hobby Lobby refusing to cover “Birth Control”, even though the case was about abortifaceints (A much narrower category, for example the usual monthly Birth control pills that everyone thinks of when you say birth control were never part of the case, and are still covered by Hobby Lobby insurance along with diaphragms, cervical caps, surgery et al.)
    I’m only picking on the New York Times because they are so well known and have a pay wall, I can’t name a trustworthy news source. Once you know you are being manipulated no matter what, why pay for the privilege.

  4. Fred Smith

    The problems with most news outlets is that they no longer report the news. They have become political shills for the liberal party, rarely taking liberals to task for their extreme left wing views on what is right for America.

    • Please, if the liberals wanted to control the media they would have done so by now. The media is more interested in making money, which is why Fox News is full of paranoid conspiracies.

    • txpatriot

      I think the problem with online news is less a Left vs. Right issue as it is a Hard News vs. Opinion issue.

      Bloggers are not journalists, and mostly what bloggers publish is now news but opinion (of course thy call it “analysis”). With traditional newspapers dying off, there will be fewer and fewer actual journalists reporting hard news.

      Any Joe Blow with Internet access can start up a blog and readers will have no idea whether the blog is trustworthy (e.g., for every “black helicopters in Pakistan” tweet there are a dozen or more false tweets about “Sandy flooding the NYSE”).

      Culling the reputable news sources from the unreliable will get harder and harder as Internet access gets more ubiquitous and traditional newsrooms get smaller and smaller.

  5. Tom

    This is a smart smart post. And I am really glad to read this because I think people rarely take the time to think about these issues before hand and instead react to them long after the horse has left the barn.

  6. Nico Ungari

    Very soon consumers will be able to clearly identify the services that push them only content they want to be consumed versus what is, and should be, relevant on the web. Services need to give users the real power in what becomes trending. The community will soon be the strength of media, democratizing the web. Some services have already gone that way, and it shows. Reddit, Theneeds and some others, realized that users want to personalize their own streams, having an input in what they see and what others do as well. Communities have to be at the core of the web.

  7. Joey Johansen

    You can set the facebook news feed to ‘Most Recent’ instead of it’s filtered default. This bypasses most or all of the dynamic displaying that facebook does on your behalf and just shows you the feed of your friends as raw as you can get. There may still be some omitting on facebooks part but from what I’ve experienced it’s pretty close to the raw feed.

    • txpatriot

      I think FB still filters your newsfeed, even if you select “Most Recent”. I have several hundred friends and I’ve “liked” several hundred pages. If I saw every update from every one, my newsfeed would flash by faster than my twitter feed, where I’m flowing only a couple of hundred people.