The United States Of Facebook

The prospect of AT&T acquiring Time-Warner has triggered howls from both presidential campaigns, consumer-protection groups and free-press advocates, all of whom raised fears of media concentration, diminished competition and the threat to democracy posed by consolidation in the marketplace of ideas.

Well, right burning church. Wrong burning pew. 

This is the case of one giant company with no other prospects for growth acquiring another giant company with no prospects for growth. It's as if the Titanic survivors took refuge on the Lusitania. The dangers to the rest of us are real, but they lie elsewhere. 

If you are concerned about democracy and consumer choice, direct your attention to “social distribution” -- a shift in publishing, and a threat to publishing independence, that’s advancing at a breathtaking pace and scale. When you click on a Facebook Instant Article or an item from Google Amp, somewhere an important story is dying -- because social distribution, like high school and presidential campaigns, overwhelmingly benefits the popular. Whether a given story is served to a given reader is determined not by editors or curators but by algorithms, which do not measure substance, significance or potential impact on society. They measure only what users have looked at before, what they have commented on and what they have shared.



Needless to say, such algorithms do not favor statehouse coverage and investigative reporting. 

If this were simply additional distribution for serious publishers, none of this would present a threat. However, Facebook, Google and Snapchat are becoming the primary channel for hundreds of publishers that value not only these platforms’ vast global reach and prowess at seamlessly loading content, but also their capacity to efficiently target advertising messages and to fetch higher ad prices in so doing.

The problem, once again, is that none of these platforms has anything resembling journalistic sensibilities. Their godhead is page views, and this does not bode well for coverage of gerrymandering in Michigan's 14th Congressional district. What it does augur is a troubling conflict of interest. Publishers -- especially publicly held publishers -- must now reckon the relative value of popular stories that generate audience and revenue, and journalistic bran that fulfills the editorial mission.

I'll leave you to ponder how that will play out.

The EdgeRank Effect is just the latest pernicious side effect of the digital revolution, which by enabling an endless glut of content supply in countless tiny fragments has devastated the mass-advertising business model that was so munificent for nearly three centuries. You are all too aware of The Incredible Shrinking Newsroom and the parallel heyday of dancing cats. But now that ruinous supply-and-demand imbalance, along with evolving ubiquitous technology, is propelling us into a new media epoch: the uncompetitive, undemocratic Mobile Age.

Smartphones change everything. And, between them, Facebook and YouTube account for more than a third of mobile traffic and half of its ad revenue. Every 90 days, that share grows as the two companies continue to scoop up 90 cents of every new dollar of mobile expenditure. As such, we become more dependent on the auto-pandering machine.

I'm no Trump. I allege no sinister conspiracy to pacify and dumb us down, along 1984 lines. But between human nature and machine learning, the system is indeed rigged and there may be no way back.

The implications are as terrifying as the irony is searing. You may recall the fears of the 1980s, when such authors as Ben Bagdikian sounded the alarms as the likes of Gannett, Disney, Time Inc. and News Corp gobbled up disproportionate amount of content and distribution. Media concentration! Democracy in jeopardy! Those fears subsided -- in fact, seemed positively quaint -- once the Internet came along and offered an unlimited democracy of thoughts and ideas. Through blogs and YouTube, everybody had the power to create and distribute at virtually no cost. It was a democratic utopia.

Until dystopia began setting in. We are now, as I’ve been screaming for the past year, on the cusp of Bagdikian's worst nightmare.  And it will get much worse before it gets any better. Gradually we are living accidental Orwell, losing access to the most basic journalism we need to evaluate our institutions. We have become the United States of Facebook. And, speaking of cats on the Internet, the Fourth Estate is clinging tenuously to its ninth life.

At this particular moment in history, how prescient of Facebook to offer us -- in addition to its iconic “like” button -- an anger button, a tears button, a surprise button and a laughter button. Just in time, I say. Now all we need is a panic button.

11 comments about "The United States Of Facebook".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Len Stein from Visibility Public Relations, October 31, 2016 at 3:11 p.m.

    sigh, all too true- we are becoming the accidental Owellians

  2. Garrett Donaldson from JKR Advertising & Marketing, October 31, 2016 at 3:23 p.m.

    "We have met the enemy and he is us."

  3. Ford Kanzler from Marketing/PR Savvy, October 31, 2016 at 3:23 p.m.

    Yes, we've been seeing real Jounralism decline for 20+ years. Do you see anythiing positive coming out of the other side?

  4. Philip Moore from Philip Moore, October 31, 2016 at 3:24 p.m.

    Why so glum. If consumers of information are too ignorant or lazy to seek out the "real" news, isn't it a bit patronizing to force it down their throats? Ah, but you counter, an educated citizenry is the cornerstone of democracy. The answer to that is to eliminate electronic and pre-printed ballots. If you as a voter aren't informed enough to know who is running, then you should either not vote or write in the person you would like in that role. This would also add some much needed levity to election coverage and raise the bar for candidates. It's going to be a stretch to claim a mandate when you received fewer votes than Mickey Mouse.

  5. Bill Mcdonald from None, October 31, 2016 at 3:33 p.m.

    What would you rather have?

    [  ]  An uninformed populace (centuries past, before the printing press)

    [  ]  A misinformed populace (today, with social media)

  6. Michael Porte from The Field (social), WheresSpot, October 31, 2016 at 4:33 p.m.

    Well said Bob!

  7. Laura Wilkinson Sinton from Vox Advisory, LLC, October 31, 2016 at 6:12 p.m.

    Broadcasters (mass media ones, that is) were at one time required to "serve in the public interest" covering items of import. To fail to do so would jeopardize your license to broadcast on the (free) public airwaves. It was a way for regulatory oversight to keep everyone on the rails.

    Reagan changed that, eliminating the "fairness doctrine" which required you to cover both sides of political discourse (and not the false equivalency kind, either). Thus, Rush Limbaugh was born on AM radio. The rest followed suit. Then cable. Then the interwebs. Then social media on mobile. And it's way off the rails on all mediums.

    It happens slowly at first. And then all at once.

    B.G.- as always, spot on.

  8. Jeff Sawyer from GH, November 1, 2016 at 8:35 a.m.

    "It's as if the Titanic survivors took refuge on the Lusitania."

    Who else writes like Garfield? It's as if James Thurber is using E.B. White's pen.  

  9. Chuck Lantz from, network replied, November 1, 2016 at 6:14 p.m.


  10. Brian Durocher from GTB, November 2, 2016 at 9:51 a.m.

    In the pre-internet age, when you wanted journalism you consumed it, by looking at your paper or choosing to watch a report on TV. In the digital age, you can find journalism in exactly the same way, except now there are far more choices than there were then. There is more journalism out there now than there was then, not less. Garfield's premise is correct only if you assume people consume nothing but You Tube or Facebook. 

  11. Michael Porte from The Field (social), WheresSpot replied, November 2, 2016 at 11:02 a.m.

    Actually it's more about where you find your news. In the pre-internet age, you may have come across a news item that one of your Facebook (etc) friends would never have posted. You may have learned something new, and gained some new insight - Therefore getting some perspective that today you may never discover in your FB, Twitter feed - like minded world.

Next story loading loading..