Ownership

[Commentary] The situation is sickeningly familiar to anyone who works on — or reads — a metropolitan daily newspaper, whether it’s in New Orleans, Detroit or just about any other American city. The paper is hurting financially. It cuts reporters, photographers and editors to make ends meet. Then it cuts even deeper. The journalism suffers, but the paper’s work is still vital to its community. And a question looms: Will it even survive the next decade?

Digital advertising, once thought to be a savior, hasn’t materialized sufficiently. The base of possible subscribers is limited. And vastly increased chain ownership by out-of-town investors, who too often squeeze the paper to improve profits, has wreaked havoc. To say that local journalism should be saved is an understatement. It simply must be saved, and the time is now.

Over the past two and a half years, Facebook’s integrity as a place that “helps you connect and share with the people in your life” has been all but laid to waste—as it has served as a clearinghouse for propaganda, disinformation, fake news, and fraud accounts. More serious still: Facebook may not just have been vulnerable to information warfare; it may have been complicit. Zuckerberg, however, has been unaccountably slow to make earnest amends.

House Commerce Committee Democratic leaders wrote to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai requesting answers to a series of questions that he failed to address in his response to the lawmakers’ August 14th inquiry regarding Sinclair Broadcast Group. The letters focus on reports that Chairman Pai’s actions suggest preferential treatment towards Sinclair, and whether his interactions with the Trump Campaign, Administration, and Sinclair demonstrated inappropriate coordination. The follow-up letter, signed by Commerce Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Oversight Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette (D-CO), and Communications Subcommittee Ranking Member Mike Doyle (D-PA), expresses the lawmakers’ concern that Chairman Pai failed to provide the requested correspondence between his office and Sinclair representatives. Additionally, the lawmakers still have questions about the timing of the reinstatement of the UHF discount rule and the review of the proposed merger between Sinclair and Tribune Media Company, as well as about the adequacy of the initial public comment periods for the proposed merger.

“We received your September 8, 2017 letter, and we appreciate the efforts of Commission staff to collect the information included in your response, but the narrative you provided failed to respond to several of our specific questions and raised additional questions,” wrote Pallone, DeGette, and Doyle. “Your failure to provide the requested correspondence between your office and Sinclair representatives is most troubling. We reiterate our request that you provide all correspondence between you and members of your office and representatives of Sinclair, including any lobbyists and lawyers representing Sinclair, since November 8, 2016, regardless of whether it is subject to a FOIA request.”

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg took to Facebook to once more defend himself and his platform. Responding to a cavalierly-tweeted charge of anti-Trump bias from the President of the United States, Zuckerberg again repeated his claim that Facebook was “a platform for all ideas,” and that, contrary to unfolding public opinion, his company did much more to further democracy than to stifle it. These arguments rest on a simple equation: The amount of information that a population shares is directly proportional to the quality of its democracy. And, as a corollary: the more viewpoints that get exposed, the greater the collective empathy and understanding.

This is what’s missing from Zuckerberg’s math—the transmutation of information into common myth. We have more data then ever before, but when you put it all together, it doesn’t add up to much.

Google failed to deploy gigabit internet and video service to parts of the Kansas City metro area in the timeframe it promised. The Kansas Corporation Commission confirmed that Google missed deadlines to bring service throughout four Kansas cities — Mission Hills, Westwood, Westwood Hills and Kansas City. Google said in 2012 that it planned to bring service throughout those cities within five years.

The Kansas City Star has taken its watchdog role quite seriously with regard to Google Fiber. The report about the Google missed deadlines was followed a few days later by an editorial from the Star’s editorial board questioning the benefits Google Fiber had brought to the Kansas City area. The editorial noted, for example, that Google’s commitment to install free high-speed internet service for non-profits in the area is expected to end by January, even though 40 non-profits have not yet been connected. According to the editorial, Google Fiber “has changed Kansas City but hasn’t transformed it.” This attitude is quite different from what Telecompetitor experienced in another gigabit city — Chattanooga, where local utility EPB was the first U.S. network operator to undertake a citywide gigabit rollout and where local supporters helped leverage the gigabit rollout to attract numerous high-tech companies to the community, bringing new jobs and generally helping to revitalize the community.

As Facebook sought to polish its reputation, industry leaders were wrestling with the misuse of marketing tools that had been developed for their benefit.

Facebook is seen as an unavoidable force, not only because it’s the second-biggest seller of online advertising after Google, but also because it provides companies with unprecedented methods for targeting ads to people based on their tastes and habits.

“Sometimes our industry gets so enamored with new things that we lose sight of unintended consequences,” said Sarah Hofstetter, chief executive of the ad agency 360i. “Data and personalization is one of those things. It can be used for phenomenal targeting of potential consumers to buy cookies, toys and book hotel rooms, but it also can be used to target hate groups and inspire nefarious outcomes.” She added, “Whether they like it or not, media companies have a tremendous responsibility to protect the public from itself.”

But while the social concerns over such misuse are clear, brands are not responding by changing the way they spend their advertising budgets, as they did when ads for brands like AT&T were discovered on YouTube videos promoting terrorism and hate speech.

Toshiba, the huge but struggling Japanese conglomerate, traded some of its size for financial security by selling off most of its profitable microchip business. It was not the way the company, which has long been accused of being bloated and directionless, had hoped to slim down.

Toshiba said it had signed a deal to sell 60 percent of the microchip unit, Toshiba Memory Corporation, to a group of international investors that includes Bain Capital and Apple. The deal, which followed months of tumultuous negotiations, will net Toshiba about $14 billion. In addition to Apple, investors include three other American businesses: Seagate Technology and Kingston Technology, two data storage companies, and a venture capital arm of Dell, the computer maker. The South Korean semiconductor maker SK Hynix, and Hoya, a Japanese manufacturer of optical equipment, were also named as investors. Toshiba itself will retain just over 40 percent of the unit, one of the world’s largest producers of the flash memory chips used to store data in smartphones and other digital devices.

Most of Australia’s newspapers, radio stations and television broadcasters are controlled by only a handful of owners, like Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, making it one of the most concentrated media markets in the developed world. Soon, even more Australian media properties could be in fewer hands.

New legislation backed by Australia’s governing Liberal party would eliminate restrictions separating broadcast media from print and would allow media companies to own more outlets in a city. The legislation, which has cleared Australia’s Senate and could come before the lower house of Parliament as soon as next month, is widely expected to pass. Media owners say the rules are relics of a less digital era. Like media companies around the world, Australia’s newspaper and television station owners are contending with the rise of internet companies like Facebook and Google, which are drawing away advertising dollars, eyeballs and eardrums. But in an echo of debates raging in other countries, opponents say the changes would lead to a less diverse media market, with Murdoch’s company among those likely to benefit the most. They also contend the legislation’s backers are simply helping their political allies.

Mark Zuckerberg wants his company’s role in the election to be seen like this: Facebook had a huge effect on voting—and no impact on votes. If Facebook wants to be a force for good in democracy, it needs to answer some questions. Does maximizing engagement, as it is understood through News Feed’s automated analysis, create structural problems in the information ecosystem? More broadly, do the tools that people use to communicate on Facebook influence what they actually talk about?

The fake news that ran rampant on Facebook was a symptom of a larger issue. The real problem lies at the very heart of Facebook’s most successful product: Perhaps virality and engagement cannot be the basis for a ubiquitous information service that acts as a “force for good in democracy.” And if this is true, how much is Facebook willing to change?

The European Union is once again asking Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other web companies to crack down on hate speech and speech inciting violence and terrorism — but this time, it’s taking things a step further. The European Commission has issued guidelines for web companies to follow, and it’s warning the companies that, if they don’t comply, the Commission may pass legislation. And that legislation, of course, could lead to some huge fines. There are a handful of guidelines so far.

The Commission recommends that web companies appoint a dedicated point of contact, who law enforcement can contact when illegal content is discovered. It wants web companies to allow third-party “trusted flaggers” with “specific expertise in identifying illegal content” to come in and monitor potentially illegal posts. And it asks web companies to invest in technologies that can automatically detect potentially illegal posts and speech.The Commission would also like companies to do more to prevent illegal content from being reposted after it’s been taken down. And the Commission says time frames may need to be established for how quickly illegal content is taken down once it’s discovered. Web companies should issue public guidelines, the Commission says, so that users know how takedown requests are treated and what kind of content gets removed.