Hypocrites undo the trust argument
There is a familiar argument made by established media about its quality of environment, inherent brand safety and high levels of trustworthiness. On many levels this is true, and it is an argument that has been deployed, particularly by news publishers, as they seek to commercially differentiate themselves from the likes of Facebook and Google.
Yet it all falls apart when publishers choose to host extreme and foul content – with complete editorial awareness – as was the case in the immediate and confusing aftermath of the Christchurch attacks.
There is hardly a week gooes by when the big tech platforms are not embroiled in some new brand safety disaster – and both Facebook and Google were very publicly lambasted for failing to stop the Christchurch terrorist’s video from spreading like a virus through their servers.
However, news publishers are unable to seek the moral high ground here and their well-made arguments were quickly discredited no thanks to Mail Online, The Sun and the Daily Mirror, who all rushed to upload video clips of the atrocity.
Facebook and Google – for all their faults and challenges in this area – were, at least, doing the exact opposite.
Mail Online even posted – although it later removed, along with the video clips – the terrorist’s ‘manifesto’. The Mirror said it posted the video against its own editorial guidelines and removed it. The Sun defended using clips.
The print version of the Daily Mail and The Sun, laughably, even criticised Facebook for not doing enough to stop the spread of the video.
None of this escaped the attention of the UK police. Indeed, Neil Basu, one of Britain’s most senior officers, penned an open letter stating: “The same media companies who have lambasted social media platforms for not acting fast enough to remove extremist content are simultaneously publishing uncensored Daesh [Islamic State] propaganda on their websites, or make the rambling ‘manifestos’ of crazed killers available for download.
“The reality is that every terrorist we have dealt with has sought inspiration from the propaganda of others, and when they can’t find it on Facebook, YouTube, Telegram or Twitter they only have to turn on the TV, read the paper or go to one of a myriad of mainstream media websites struggling to compete with those platforms.”
This flies in the face of a newspaper boss writing in the trade press last year that: “Trusted newsbrands have both an ethical and a commercial duty to ensure that they remain a transparent, brand-safe environment for advertisers.”
Yes, it was only a handful of newsbrands that indulged on this occasion, but media owners have been united under one banner when squaring up to the online tech companies. It only takes a handful to poison the well.
Newsbrands are important components of our society and culture and, given many are under financial pressure, they must not be so hasty to chase online traffic. They might get a short-term spike in revenue, but the longer-term costs could be damaging, for both them and the rest of society.