• Lab
  • AndroidForMobile Foundation at
    HOME
              
    LATEST STORY
    Bad news from Mashable, BuzzFeed, and Vice shows times are rough for ad-supported digital media
    ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE

    This Week in Review: Debating journalists’ role in DOJ seizures, and Facebook tackles hate speech

    Plus: Newsweek up for sale again, the social media editor in decline, and the rest of the week’s media and tech news.
    May 31, 2013, 10:08 a.m.

    james-rosen-fox-news

    Blame for both the DOJ and journalists: The story of the U.S. Department of Justice’s seizure of news organizations’ phone and email records moved into “who knew what and when” stage, especially regarding the case of Fox News reporter James Rosen. Fox didn’t know Rosen’s phone records and emails had been taken until it became public last week, but The Wall Street Journal this week that its parent company, News Corp., was notified by the DOJ in 2010 but didn’t tell Fox.

    News Corp. issued some mixed signals in response, from the DOJ but eventually conceding that it didn’t dispute the DOJ’s claim that notification was sent. The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza as to why it’s in News Corp.’s interest to be more deferential to the Obama administration DOJ, but in Fox News’ interest to be more antagonistic. However, The Atlantic Wire’s Elspeth Reeve that Fox News doesn’t have a very good track record on advocating for journalists’ freedom in these cases.

    The metastasizing issue — coupled with the DOJ’s seizure of what the Associated Press claims is “” of its phone records — has led Attorney General Eric Holder to with the top representatives of several major news organizations to hash out guidelines for DOJ intrusion. Several news organizations, including The New York Times and AP, announced, however, that because it’s set to be off the record. The Daily Beast’s Daniel Klaidman on Holder’s regrets in these cases, saying that it’s not part of the progressive image in which he views himself, and Salon’s Alex Pareene despite the outcry.

    In a pair of stories, The New York Times of many of the Obama administration’s leak inquiries and journalists’ charges that such efforts are on investigative journalism on the federal government. Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian at journalists’ lack of action against the administration’s actions: In the current climate, he said, “it’s very difficult to imagine the US press corps taking any meaningful steps to push back against these attacks. And as long as that’s true, it’s very hard to see why the Obama administration would possibly stop doing it.”

    At the same time, several others argued that the press’s self-defense reaction is a bit too knee-jerk in this case. Slate’s and The Washington Post’s both argued that Rosen’s source was not a whistleblower exposing corruption but someone simply breaking the law and revealing harmful information. And Reuters’ Jack Shafer contended that Obama , as his crusade against leaks has been much more on the supply side than the demand side.

    Still others, including of the New York Observer and of the National Journal, were concerned that the proposed shield law wouldn’t do enough to protect journalists. Kevin Drum of Mother Jones between their concern for journalists and the objections of those such as Pincus.

    Facebook rape ad

    Facebook, hate speech, and censorship: Yet another debate over Facebook’s control over its users’ content simmered this week, though it was a bit different from the privacy flaps of the past. A coalition of feminist groups called Women, Action, and the Media  last week urging it to remove content that trivializes or glorifies violence against women, noting that Facebook already moderates what it considers hate speech and pornographic content.

    The groups also campaigned to Facebook’s advertisers, succeeding in getting several of them to pull their advertising until Facebook took some action. Facebook ultimately responded by saying it hadn’t policed gender-related hate speech as well as it should have and vowing to take several steps to more closely moderate such content. The New York Times has a tying together the advertiser campaign and Facebook’s response.

    While Valleywag’s Sam Biddle that all Facebook did was try to placate those protesting rather than commit to any real action, while Forbes’ and Reuters’ noted that Facebook probably didn’t do this out of any morally consistent concern over content, but simply because of advertiser pressure. Hill concluded that “the procedure appears to be that they will draw the line when advertisers start complaining to them,” and Shafer argued that Facebook has only pushed this discourse underground, further away from the voices of reason and shame.

    And while everyone seemed to agree that Facebook’s well within its rights to police speech on its own platform (and that it’s clamping down on a particularly heinous form of speech in this case), they also wondered about the precedent. Mathew Ingram of GigaOM about the slippery slope of what Facebook considers hate speech.

    newsweek feature

    Newsweek on the block (again): Variety that IAC is attempting to sell Newsweek, a month after its chairman, Barry Diller, called his purchase of the magazine a “mistake.” IAC shut down Newsweek’s print edition at the end of 2012, turning it into a web-only publication. As Variety noted, most every indicator at Newsweek — subscriptions, traffic, cash flow — is trending downward.

    Newsweek , saying that Newsweek is drawing resources away from its sister site, The Daily Beast. Forbes’ Jeff Bercovici : Diller bought Newsweek thinking he needed a print publication to supplement its digital ad base, but since it’s failed at that, it’s become a mere distraction (and drag on the bottom line). Gawker’s Hamilton Nolan , though Mathew Ingram of paidContent for its new owner: drop the paywall, aggregate, go deep on particular topics, develop a strong voice, and embrace mobile.

    Reading roundup: Despite the quiet week overall, there were several smaller stories to watch:

    — Rob Fishman of BuzzFeed questioning whether the social media editor might be an endangered species at news organizations, as engagement with social media becomes a deeper part of each journalists’ work and routines. Reuters’ Anthony De Rosa (more on him in a bit) said social media editors are , and Digital First’s Mandy Jenkins that many news organizations (especially smaller ones) still have a need for someone dedicated to newsroom-wide social media integration and gave some useful advice about how to do it. Elsewhere in social media, Twitter said it rather than become one of them, and and talked on Medium about how undo Facebook’s massification of online social interaction.

    — One of the news industry’s most prominent social media editors, Anthony De Rosa, , the startup that summarizes top news stories by breaking them down into “atomic units.” PaidContent’s Mathew Ingram , and Fast Company’s Anjali Mullany with De Rosa about his plans there.

    — A few News Corp. pieces: It it will officially split into a publishing company (called News Corp.) and an entertainment company (21st Century Fox) on June 28. It introduced its , and the new News Corp.’s head, Robert Thomson, declared that it would have “relentless” cuts in store after the split.

    — BuzzFeed featuring video through a partnership with CNN. The Wall Street Journal what’s behind both companies’ move deeper into online video.

    — Finally, a couple of smart pieces on the native advertising phenomenon: CUNY’s Jeff Jarvis against news orgs getting into native advertising, and Publish2’s Scott Karp of making native advertising scale.

    POSTED     May 31, 2013, 10:08 a.m.
    SHARE THIS STORY
       
    Show comments  
    Show tags
     
    Join the 45,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
    Bad news from Mashable, BuzzFeed, and Vice shows times are rough for ad-supported digital media
    The rapid growth of Google and Facebook continues to take its toll on digital media companies.
    Asking members to support its journalism (no prizes, no swag), The Guardian raises more reader revenue than ad dollars
    The Guardian revamped its ask and its membership offerings — moving from 12,000 members in the beginning of 2016 to 300,000 today.
    Beating the 404 death knell: Singapore news startups struggle to cover costs and find their footing
    Political news reporting doesn’t seem to be holding up well as a business in the city-state. And it’s even harder when you’re seen as “alternative” media.