
Mr. Universe gets his news from all the sources. (credit: Serenity)
Today in the New York Times op-ed section, Ars Tech Culture Editor Annalee Newitz takes part in a debate over whether Facebook is saving or ruining journalism. She argues that Facebook has changed its attitude toward news a great deal over its history and that in the past two years the company has become less democratic about how it brings outside news sources to its readers.
We can argue for hours about whether Facebook is terrible or awful, but there's no denying that in the '00s it was part of a trend toward opening up definitions of what counts as journalism. The company's incredible audience size meant that information once hidden in obscure parts of the media landscape could be exposed to millions of people at once. As Annalee writes:
The amazing part was that the traffic flood could be directed at anything: It could be an investigative article about corruption from a civil liberties organization, a scientist’s account of her latest discovery, a personal story of addiction, a cat photo, or a movie review in The New York Times. It was radically democratizing and reflected a larger shift happening in the world of journalism. A new generation was challenging what counted as news and who could lay claim to the title “journalist.” Like many social media companies, Facebook helped amplify new voices whose opinions and experiences had never been part of mainstream media before, and there is no doubt that the public benefited from this shift.
But those days are over. Facebook has changed its News Feed algorithm to make it very difficult for outside news sources to get placement in people's feeds. Now media companies and journalists have to pay for placement or cut deals with Facebook to post their work on the site via Facebook Instant or Live. This undermines any good the company might have done in the past:








