Two seemingly different stories illustrate the external challenges faced by media in the 21st century.
The President wants the news media investigated by Congress.
Google’s algorithm changes made earlier this year are impacting more than the just the purveyors of fraudulent news accounts.
These threats come on top of the ongoing collapse of the traditional business model(s) responsible for funding the fourth estate.
***
President Donald Trump took his crusade against journalism to a new level today, using Twitter to question why the Senate Intelligence Committee wasn’t investigating “Fake News Networks.” The President is upset over reports quoting Rex Tillerson calling him a “f**king moron,” something the Secretary of State didn’t deny saying in a subsequent press conference.
Why Isn’t the Senate Intel Committee looking into the Fake News Networks in OUR country to see why so much of our news is just made up-FAKE!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 5, 2017
This demand by El Presidente isn’t going anywhere soon. Aside from the First Amendment, there’s the little matter of him validating his cabinet member’s crude assessment. Maybe he thinks “Intelligence” has to do with smarts.
Boris Epshteyn, a Trump campaign spokesman, has joined Sinclair Broadcast Group as chief political analyst.
The danger lies in the larger context, namely the degradation of yet another societal institution. In the United States of Me, any entity not supportive of the ideology of personal prosperity needs to be marginalized. It’s a matter of (my) greed versus (public) need.
As we’ve seen by way of the executive actions of the current administration, destruction of institutions is a desirable feature.
These repeated bleatings about “Fake News” can have a cumulative effect on the enough of the public to clear the way for Dear Leader-style media. Some media companies, with Sinclair Broadcast Group leading the way, are already imposing regular “sermons” covering Trumpanista perspectives on local operations.
***
AlterNet, one of the top five independent domestic news sites, announced their search engine traffic has fallen by 40% in recent months. The progressive-leaning site publishes a couple hundred stories monthly and has been publishing for over 15 years. (The San Diego Free Press occasionally reposts some of their content we feel may be of interest to our readers.)
The story is about monopoly on steroids. It is about the extreme and unconstrained power of Google and Facebook, and how they are affecting what you read, hear and see. It is about how these two companies are undermining progressive news sources, including AlterNet.
In June, Google announced major changes in its algorithm designed to combat fake news. Ben Gomes, the company’s vice president for engineering, stated in April that Google’s update of its search engine would block access to “offensive” sites, while working to surface more “authoritative content.”
This seemed like a good idea. Fighting fake news, which Trump often uses to advance his interests and rally his supporters, is an important goal that AlterNet shares.
But little did we know that Google had decided, perhaps with bad advice or wrong-headed thinking, that media like AlterNet—dedicated to fighting white supremacy, misogyny, racism, Donald Trump, and fake news—would be clobbered by Google in its clumsy attempt to address hate speech and fake news.
AlterNet Trafic data
Alternet’s falling traffic has hurt it financially. About half its revenue comes from ads. They have now launched an emergency appeal to readers for the first time in the organization’s history.
This announcement comes on the heels of similar reports from other progressive media of precipitous declines in readership since tweaks in Google algorithms were made earlier in 2017.
Truthout (-25%), Common Dreams (37%), DemocracyNow (-36%), The Intercept (-19%), and Socialist Worker (-47%) are among those reporting significant declines.
The World Socialist Web Site, which has done much of the original research on this change, has been the most affected, seeing a 67% decline.
What all these sites have in common is a willingness to give voice to non-mainstream news and views. Some are better than others in terms of quality and formatting. I certainly disagree with some of what I’ve seen on these sites. Some of it is clickbait. But I don’t think any of them meet the standard of lying to the reader–which is what I think the definition of what Fake News should be.
The larger issue, as AlterNet editor Don Hazen points out, is what information are you not seeing, hearing, or watching, simply because of secret algorithms that Google (and Facebook) never explain or make public.”
***
YouTube screen grab
Following reports of fraudulent news stories being promoted via Google and Facebook (the two primary drivers of internet traffic), a consensus emerged in tech circles that something had to be done.
In April (and again in June) Google announced changes in search results designed to “demote” less trustworthy sites.
From Recode.com:
The change follows increased attention to flaws in top search results, including the promotion of fake news — and deliberately misleading or false information formatted to look like news — during the 2016 presidential election.
Google said it has updated its algorithms to better prioritize “authoritative” content. Content may be deemed authoritative based on signals such as affiliation of a site with a university or verified news source, how often other sites link to the site in question and the quality of the sites that link.
“We’ve adjusted our signals to help surface more authoritative pages and demote low-quality content, so that issues similar to the Holocaust denial results that we saw back in December are less likely to appear,” writes Ben Gomes, Google’s executive in charge of search, in a blog post published today.
And, I’m sad to say, this decline in traffic has also affected the San Diego Free Press. Our readership coming directly to us –not via search– grew dramatically when Trump took office. Our overall traffic, however, has declined since April.
We took various measures to improve our accessibility, including paying for search engine analysis/optimization (a waste of money) and switching hosting companies (a good investment).
SDFP’s business model from Day One has excluded monetizing the site via ads, popups, paid content, memberships, etc. As an all-volunteer organization, we could afford to operate in this manner, paying our costs from voluntary donations made via a small box on our main page.
The larger issue, as AlterNet editor Don Hazen points out, is what information are you not seeing, hearing, or watching, simply because of secret algorithms that Google (and Facebook) never explain or make public.”
***
Both Facebook and Google have also made changes allowing users to flag inappropriate content. I believe there have been instances where those holding opposing viewpoints have gamed these systems to hurt sites.
These changes in search and social media methodology failed miserably following the Las Vegas shootings, with really flaky and/or disreputable sources getting more play than warranted.
I’m not willing to call what going on with search and social media regarding progressive sites a partisan or political conspiracy.
At this point, my analysis is that what we are seeing is the inability of machines to comprehend the validity of media not connected with mainstream organizations. They also fail at weeding out bs a human with 10 cents worth of common sense would question.
What you can do. In our case, we’d love it if you used to buttons at the end of each story to share posts you like with social media. If you like what you see and want to see more on a regular basis, subscribe. It costs nothing and there are a variety of choices you can name as to what ends up in your email inbox. (Unsubscribing is as easy as clicking the link at the bottom of each email.)
Looking for some action? Check out the Weekly Progressive Calendar, published every Friday in this space, featuring Demonstrations, Rallies, Teach-ins, Meet Ups and other opportunities to get your activism on.
Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to “The Starting Line” and get an email every time a new article in this series is posted!
I read the Daily Fishwrap(s) so you don’t have to… Catch “the Starting Line” Monday thru Friday right here at San Diego Free Press (dot) org. Send your hate mail and ideas to DougPorter@SanDiegoFreePress.Org Check us out on Facebook and Twitter.
Doug Porter
Latest posts by Doug Porter (see all)
- Last Call. Last Column. - December 14, 2018
- Which Presidential Candidate Will You Support in 2020? - December 13, 2018
- Mounting the Assault on Big Gay and Other Drivel From SDSU’s Minimum Wage Scrooge - December 12, 2018
Great column
I did not realize these algorithms were impacting all of the progressive sites so severely. It is difficult to believe the wizards at Google and face book didn’t see it coming. It is also difficult to believe they would perceive sites like this as an existential threat that warrants this level of interference.
What is the Free Press doing with all the billions they are obviously subtracting from the bottom line of these media titans? Buying defense stocks to cash in on the trillion dollar nuclear “upgrade” that is being bandied about since we are going to be attacked by ISIS, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, China and North Korea any day now? Sorry, I forgot Iran. Of course Cuba or Venezuela may launch a surprise attack any day now so we may need to add to our missile defense systems which are primed to intercept Russian nukes right now.
If Google and face book wanted to really make a difference they would shut down access to the NYT and the Washington Post. They are the purveyors of the most dangerous foreign policy “fake news” at the time of this writing. But I think they may be on the same team as the internet giants.
The only existential threat I see is to our teetering democracy. We are bankrupting our country paying double for health care and Rx’s and of course since W’s “leave no millionaire behind” economic program, revenue is going to be tight once the great orange pushes through his tax plan to spur economic growth. For the 1%.
while this news of the effects of algorithm adjustments on progressive online newsites is disturbing, i also wonder about the effect of the opposite end of the spectrum. iow, has there been a similar effect on those right-wing websites that actually DO promulgate false news stories? or, is the change in algorithm working as it was intended?
I’m going to show my ignorance of the “buttons” at the end of the story. If you hit a button does it take you to that website or does it just post it there somehow? Do you have to be a subscriber to the button you choose?
The buttons for Facebook, Twitter, etc only work if you have an account with those social media. On a good day, more than 1/3 of our readers come in that way.
Thanks, I get it. I can hit Google Plus.
M