The Invisible Hand of the Unaccountable Algorithm: How Google, Facebook and Other Tech Companies Are Changing Journalism

Chapter

Abstract

Across the world both journalists and their audiences now depend on social media and search engines to deliver them news and information. Standing between the individual and the ever-growing volumes of digital data are a variety of automated gatekeepers—algorithms—whose great and growing power to influence journalism is only starting to be recognised. This unaccountable software—generally under the control of large intermediaries like Facebook, Apple and Google—is already influencing the ways in which journalists prioritise potential stories, how they research them, and how these stories are published and consumed. This chapter draws on Feenberg’s critical theories of technology (Questioning Technology, Routledge, London, 1999) to explore this phenomenon and describe some possible consequences for the provision and consumption of knowledge to the public sphere.

References

  1. Anderson, C. W. (2013). Towards a sociology of computational and algorithmic journalism. New Media & Society, 15(7), 1005–1021. doi:10.1177/1461444812465137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Backstrom, L. (2013, August 6). News Feed FYI: A window into News Feed. Facebook. Available from: https://www.facebook.com/business/news/News-Feed-FYI-A-Window-Into-News-Feed [January 1].
  3. Bakker, P. (2012). Aggregation, content farms and huffinization: The rise of low-pay and no-pay journalism. Journalism Practice, 6(5–6), 627–637. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2012.667266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BBC News Online. (2006, February 6). BMW given Google “death penalty”. BBC News Online. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4685750.stm. [May 30].
  6. Beckett, C. (2008). SuperMedia: Saving journalism so it can save the world. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Bhatia, R. (2016, May 12). The inside story of Facebook’s biggest setback. The Guardian. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-free-basics-india-zuckerberg.
  8. Blank, G. (2016). The digital divide among Twitter users and its implications for social research. Social Science Computer Review. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894439316671698.Google Scholar
  9. Brake, D. R. (2013). Journalists, user generated content and digital divides. In J. Gordon, G. Stewart, & P. Rowinski (Eds.), Br(e)aking the news: Journalism, politics and new media (pp. 253–270). Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  10. Burns, T. (1977). The BBC: Public institution and private world. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carr, N. (2006, March 10). The clickthrough’s tyrannical efficiency. Available from: http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/03/the_tyranny_of_1.php.
  12. Cherubini, F., & Nielsen, R. K. (2016). Editorial analytics: How news media are developing and using audience data and metrics. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Available from: http://digitalnewsreport.org/publications/2016/editorial-analytics-2016/.
  13. Cohen, N. (2010, April 5). ‘Suicide’ query prompts Google to offer hotline. New York Times. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/technology/05google.html.
  14. Dick, M. (2011). Search engine optimisation in UK news production. Journalism Practice, 5(4), 462–477. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2010.551020.
  15. D’Onfro, J. (2016, August 29). Facebook is telling the world it’s not a media company, but it might be too late. Business Insider. Available from: http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-on-facebook-being-a-media-company-2016-8.
  16. Donsbach, W. (2004). Psychology of news decisions. Journalism, 5(2), 131–157. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/146488490452002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. El-Arini, K. (2014, August 25). News Feed FYI: Click-baiting. Facebook. Available from: http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/08/news-feed-fyi-click-baiting/ [May 30].
  18. Epstein, R., & Robertson, R. E. (2015). The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(33), E4512–E4521. Available from: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4512.abstract.
  19. Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Feenberg, A. (2008). From critical theory of technology to the rational critique of rationality. Social Epistemology, 22(1), 5–28. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02691720701773247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what’s news: A study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly news, Newsweek and Time. London: Constable.Google Scholar
  22. Gillespie, T. (2012). Can an algorithm be wrong? Limn, 2. Available from: http://limn.it/can-an-algorithm-be-wrong.
  23. Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  24. Goodman, B., & Flaxman, S. (2016). European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a ‘right to explanation’. New York: ICML Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08813.
  25. Google. (n.d.-a). About Google. Available from: http://www.google.com/about.
  26. Google. (n.d.-b). Getting into Google News. Available from: https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40787?hl=en. [May 31].
  27. Herbst, J. (2016). The algorithm is an Editor. The Wall Street Journal. Available from: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-algorithm-is-an-editor-1460585346.
  28. Hermans, L., Vergeer, M., & D’Haenens, L. (2009). Internet in the daily life of journalists: Explaining the use of the internet by work-related characteristics and professional opinions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1), 138–157. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01497.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hermida, A. (2010). From TV to Twitter: How ambient news became ambient journalism. M/C Journal, 13(2). Available from: http://www.journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/220.
  30. Hermida, A., Fletcher, F., Korell, D., & Logan, D. (2012). Share, like, recommend. Journalism Studies, 13(5–6), 815–824. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2012.664430.
  31. Hindman, M., Tsioutsiouliklis, K., & Johnson, J. A. (2003). ‘Googlearchy’: How a few heavily-linked sites dominate politics on the web. In Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228485022_Googlearchy_How_a_Few_Heavily-Linked_Sites_Dominate_Politics_on_the_Web.
  32. Jiang, M. (2012). The business and politics of search engines: A comparative study of Baidu and Google’s search results of internet events in China. SSRN eLibrary. Available from: http://ssrn.com/paper=2027436.
  33. Kaplan, J., & Osofsky, J. (2016, October 21). Input from community and partners on our community standards. Facebook. Available from: http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/10/input-from-community-and-partners-on-our-community-standards/ [October 21].
  34. Kirkland, S. (2014, May 19). 3 takeaways from the “death of the homepage” and The New York Times innovation report. Poynter. Available from: http://www.poynter.org/2014/3-takeaways-from-the-death-of-the-homepage-and-the-new-york-times-innovation-report/252632 [May 28].
  35. Kirkpatrick, D. (2010). The Facebook effect: The inside story of the company that is connecting the world (1st Simon & Schuster hardcover ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  36. Levy, S. (2012). Can an algorithm write a better news story than a human reporter? Wired. Available from: http://www.wired.com/2012/04/can-an-algorithm-write-a-better-news-story-than-a-human-reporter.
  37. Lichterman, J. (2016). Survey of large publishers: 30 percent of our website visits come from Facebook. Available from: http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/09/survey-of-large-publishers-30-percent-of-our-website-visits-come-from-facebook. [September 30].
  38. Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  39. Machill, M., & Beiler, M. (2009). The importance of the internet for journalistic research. Journalism Studies, 10(2), 178–203. doi:10.1080/14616700802337768.
  40. McChesney, R. W. (2014). Digital disconnect: How capitalism is turning the internet against democracy. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  41. Metz, C. (2010, December 16). Google drops nuke on ‘objective’ search engine utopia. Available from: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/16/google_algorithms_are_google_opinions. [May 23].
  42. Morozov, E. (2011, August 4). Don’t be evil. The New Republic. Available from: https://newrepublic.com/article/91916/google-schmidt-obama-gates-technocrats.
  43. Moz.com. (n.d.). Google algorithm change history. Available from: https://moz.com/google-algorithm-change. [September 28].
  44. Napoli, P. M., & Caplan, R. (2016). When media companies insist they’re not media companies and why it matters for communications policy. Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Arlington, VA. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2750148
  45. Narayanan, A. (2016). Language necessarily contains human biases, and so will machines trained on language corpora. Available from: https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/randomwalker/language-necessarily-contains-human-biases-and-so-will-machines-trained-on-language-corpora/ [August 26].
  46. Nguyen, A. (2013). Online news audiences: The challenges of web metrics. In K. Fowler-Watt & S. Allan (Eds.), Journalism: New Challenges. Bournemouth: Centre for Journalism and Communication Research, University of Bournemouth. Available from: http://microsites.bournemouth.ac.uk/cjcr/publications/journalism-new-challenges/.
  47. Nunez, M. (2016a). Facebook employees asked Mark Zuckerberg if they should try to stop a Donald Trump presidency. Gizmodo. Available from: http://gizmodo.com/facebook-employees-asked-mark-zuckerberg-if-they-should-1771012990 [September 24].
  48. Nunez, M. (2016b, November 18). Facebook’s fight against fake news was undercut by fear of conservative backlash. Available from: https://gizmodo.com/facebooks-fight-against-fake-news-was-undercut-by-fear-1788808204 [November 18].
  49. Olsen, S. (2003, August 27). Project searches for open-source niche. CNet. Available from: http://www.cnet.com/news/project-searches-for-open-source-niche/ [August 27].
  50. O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy (1st ed.). New York: Crown.Google Scholar
  51. Pelegrin, W. (2015). Upworthy unleashed clickbait on the internet, but now it wants to take it back. Digital Trends. Available from: http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/upworthy-cofounder-admits-clickbait-is-bad [May 30].
  52. Perrin, A. J. (2015). Social media usage: 2005–2015. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/social-networking-usage-2005-2015.
  53. Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2016). The state of the news media 2016: Digital news audience fact sheet. Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. Available from: http://www.journalism.org/2016/06/15/digital-news-audience-fact-sheet.
  54. Poell, T., & Van Dijck, J. (2014). Social media and journalistic independence. In J. Bennett & N. Strange (Eds.), Media independence: Working with freedom or working for free? (pp. 182–201). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Purcell, K., Brenner, J., & Rainie, L. (2012). Search engine use 2012. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/03/09/search-engine-use-2012.
  56. Rogers, R. (2004). Information politics on the web. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Roth, D. (2009). The answer factory: Fast, disposable, and profitable as hell. Wired, 17(11). Available from: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_demandmedia/all/1.
  58. Rowan, D. (2014, February). How BuzzFeed mastered social sharing to become a media giant for a new era. Wired UK. Available from: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/buzzfeed.
  59. Santana, A. D. (2016). Controlling the conversation. Journalism Studies, 17(2), 141–158. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2014.972076.
  60. Shoemaker, P. J. (2006). News and newsworthiness: A commentary. Communications, 31(1), 105–111. doi:10.1515/COMMUN.2006.007.
  61. Thelwall, M., & Vaughan, L. (2004). Search engine coverage bias: Evidence and possible causes. Information Processing & Management, 40(4), 693–707. Available from: http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~cm1993/papers/search_engine_bias_preprint.pdf.
  62. Valinsky, J. (2016, March 1). Facebook tweaks News Feed algorithm to give preference to live videos. Newsday. Available from: http://digiday.com/platforms/facebook-tweaks-news-feed-algorithm-give-preference-live-videos. [May 30].
  63. Van Couvering, E. (2007). Is relevance relevant? Market, science, and war: Discourses of search engine quality. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), 866–887. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00354.x.
  64. Vujnovic, M., Singer, J. B., Paulussen, S., Heinonen, A., Reich, Z., Quandt, T., et al. (2010). Exploring the political-economic factors of participatory journalism. Journalism Practice, 4(3), 285–296. doi:10.1080/17512781003640588.
  65. Wells, G. (2016, September 6). Facebook’s ‘trending’ feature exhibits flaws under new algorithm. Wall Street Journal. Available from: http://www.wsj.com/articles/facebooks-trending-feature-exhibits-flaws-under-new-algorithm-1473176652.
  66. Zittrain, J. (2014, June 1). Facebook could decide an election without anyone ever finding out. The New Republic. Available from: https://newrepublic.com/article/117878/information-fiduciary-solution-facebook-digital-gerrymandering.
  67. Zuckerberg, M. (2016). A lot of you have asked what we’re doing about misinformation, so I wanted to give an update. Available from: https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103269806149061 [November 20].

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LSELondonUK

Personalised recommendations