Social Media platforms have led us up the garden path

My lament for the ink-stained wretch

Facebook is just a bunch of Hacks

Sue tosses her smartphone on the chesterfield and crosses her arms. “My Facebook’s been hacked,” she says.

“How do you know?”

“I received a message… says my account’s been suspended due to inappropriate content.”

“You’re kidding me,” I reply. “Animal adoptions, garden beds, and family photos are inappropriate? With the tsunami of hate, lies, and misinformation on that site, this is what warrants a suspension?”

Sue discovers there are few things in this world as hopeless as trying to get someone’s attention at a digital monopoly. Humans don’t answer your emails. That’s a job for the algorithms. As for getting a person on the phone? You’re kidding me, right?

Sue shakes her head. “It’s like they created an enormous public garden but no one to tend to it. Why don’t they take care of their site? Noxious weeds sprout everywhere. Their negligence has turned what could have been beautiful into something completely toxic.”

Surveys show that 50% of us get most of our news on social media. And with three billion active monthly users, Facebook does not appear too concerned about conspiracy theories and hate groups – these kinds of hot topics generate a lot of “engagement.”

In the name of free speech and “bringing the world closer together” … blah, blah, blah – it’s really just mind-numbing profitability – Facebook has no customer service. In fact, proportionate to revenues, barely anyone at all works for the Internet “platforms” that dominate our screen time. (Facebook generates more than $1.8M USD per employee.)

“The algorithm told me to scan my drivers’ licence and send it to them,” Sue tells me.

“Send it to whom?”

“The algorithm.”

“Did you do it?”

“Six times!” Sue replies.

“Sounds pretty sketchy.”

She abandons the effort and creates a new profile. Years of family photos (mostly four-legged) are vaporized.  

Ink-stained wretches…

Sue’s exasperation with the overgrown gardens gets me thinking. In today’s social media landscape, it sounds almost Smithsonian to say it (‘cause I’m not that old), but I’ve spent most of my life in the ink-on-paper world of newspapers and magazines.

Early in my career, I remember sitting with Bob Verdun, the mercurial Editor/Publisher of the Elmira Independent. During my brief tenure, I learned a few lessons from Bob. Thanks to him, one of my goals in life became attaining enough fortune or fame to be referred to as ‘mercurial’ instead of simply an asshole (I’m still working on that one).

Another lesson came way of Verdun’s custom of sitting beside us lowly reporters in the cramped, stale newsroom to edit our work.

I had just returned from covering a soft piece – one that I humbly thought might warrant my first Michener Award. A certain wildlife-loving type had donated five Peregrine falcons to the University of Waterloo – and I had not only taken some snappy photos with my K1000 but had also written a dramatic lead – sure to hook even the most casual reader.

Verdun read the opening line of my article aloud. My more experienced newsroom colleagues turned to witness what they knew to be an imminent train wreck. “Soaring down at speeds up to 200 miles per hour?” he said with a cadence and volume reminiscent of a burned-out high school teacher.

“Do you like it?” I asked sheepishly.

“Soaring DOWN?” he repeated. “Are you a fucking idiot? Birds soar up and they SWOOP DOWN!”

Of course, Verdun was right. And while I might not share his communication style, I haven’t forgotten the lesson.

Because that’s what editors do. They stop stupid stuff from going to press – and great editors can turn good stories into important ones.

And newspapers used to employ a lot of editors and reporters… alas they’re almost all gone.

Editors are the canaries of the newspaper business – among the first to be nearly choked out of existence. Early on, the Internet seemed exciting for newspaper folks – but eventually we learned that the hoped-for information economy was, in reality, the attention economy. And trust me, in the age of social media, these are not the same.

Sue’s untended garden analogy makes me think of dear friend and long-time newspaper editor, Kevin McIntosh. He passed a few years ago – far too soon – and I recall at his service former colleagues referring to him as a “good newspaperman.”

Kevin McIntosh & André Préfontaine: good editors

Kevin was one of those special people who rarely had a bad word to say about anybody – as pure a heart as you’ll find. But this is not to say he was a pushover or didn’t take sides. Kevin was on the side of the truth – and of relevant stories well told. He hated lies and he despised political office behaviour – the kind where a person takes credit for someone else’s work or stabs them in the back. (Kevin had absolutely no time for a certain Circulation Manager who played such games. “As profound as piss on a plate,” Kevin once said. I remember explaining to Kevin that it must be because the fellow’s eyes were far too close together.)

If Kevin’s newsrooms were gardens – they were not only well-tended but had impeccable edging. He knew he was responsible for every word that went to press and he took his duty seriously indeed. Weeds would surely grow – they are inevitable – but Kevin would go out, yank up the invasive species with roots intact and hold it high. He’d call the dastardly hogweed* by its name – because a lie is a lie and while perfection may not be of this world, that’s no reason not to maintain its constant pursuit.

Because algorithms and burnt-out content moderators aren’t up to the task

News feeds on Facebook or Twitter operate on a business model of commodifying the attention of billions of people per day. Facebook has hired (directly or through outsourcing) a smattering of content moderators… What’s a content moderator, you ask? They’re a bunch of burnt-out, underpaid, PTSD-suffering zombies often paid not much more than $2 an hour in low-wage countries around the world. 

Content moderators see a fraction of the most appalling content that gets flagged by the algorithms and take it down.

Simply put, content moderators are not editors.

I wonder how we can better appreciate what’s been lost in the culling of editors. What makes a good newspaper person? I turn to some friends for their thoughts.

Jim Bruce was a long-time Editor at The Windsor Star – and eventually named Publisher. Jim’s newsroom covered Essex County like the dew… and his piano-kicking, exuberant performances of Sunday Morning Christian at company parties are legendary. Here’s Jim’s thoughts on editors and “Newsmen:”

Jim Bruce

“The digital platforms have resulted in a free-for-all where anyone can vent, and there is no longer a role for the traditional editor… The EDITOR first and foremost must have the confidence and respect of the other newsroom staff which means he or she communicates effectively and is viewed as fair and objective in his or her decisions… they must have a curiosity like no other. I have been accused of being “nosey” since I was a child, which I guess is a less polite way of saying curious... but a good newsman must be interested in everything and have the ability to ask lots of questions. A good newsman must leave his/her biases, political and religious beliefs at the door and act as objectively as humanly possible.”

André Préfontaine began his distinguished career as a hunting & fishing columnist. He worked for Canadian Press, was an Editor, a Publisher, and media company President. One of the things I keep with me from my time with André is his definition of respect – a word so often overused that it can lose its meaning. André kept it simple. Respect, he said, means telling the truth – to everyone – including yourself. André told me this story:

André Préfontaine and a younger (heavier?) version of me.

 “When I was a young reporter at La Tribune de Sherbrooke, I was digging into the causes of a suspicious fire (the official report indicated that the origin was unknown but likely nefarious) that had destroyed the club house of a golf course owned by the City of Sherbrooke. Due to the risk of litigation, my article was submitted to the newspaper’s Publisher, Yvon Dubé. You can imagine that I feared my story would not be published at all. Much to my surprise, M. Dubé walked into the newsroom, tossed the article on my desk, and yelled: ‘Préfontaine, you can do better than this. Dig deeper and get me the whole story!’ After pushing my sources at city hall, the city controller slipped me a file (the traditional brown envelope) containing an audit report showing that the administrators of the golf course had carried out tens of thousands of dollars in questionable and unauthorized expenses. Of course, the golf course accounting books as well as the supporting documents had all been destroyed in the fire. After much debate in Mr. Dubé’s office, (that included the newspaper's lawyers who were reluctant), Mr. Dubé decided to publish my story on the front page of the next day’s edition. All this to tell you that good journalists need experienced editors to not only edit their work but also, and more importantly, they need their support in taking risks to publish controversial news that’s in the public interest.”

Phil Jackman is a great editor. I can say this with confidence for two reasons: First, he was universally respected at The Globe and Mail – Canada’s last bastion newsroom. And second, he once edited a piece I was working on and gave me brutal (yet accurate and well-deserved) feedback… Phil began his career on weekly newspapers in the U.K., progressed to The Guardian and then came to Canada where he worked at The Star before spending the bulk of his career at The Globe and Mail. This is what Phil has to say:

Phil Jackman

 “The basic problem is the sheer volume of the stuff. It’s impossible to vet everything. The Internet is the Wild West. When I was the Op-ed Page Editor, we looked at submissions and assessed if they were good, fair, and if they got the facts right. I was once challenged that what we were doing was censorship. It wasn’t! It was rejection. And there’s a difference. People don’t have to identify themselves online but, prior to publishing a Letter to the Editor, for instance, we would make every attempt to verify the identity of letter writer. These days the nut cases have limitless resources to publish anything online. And if enough crazies latch on, it goes viral… there is no fact checking. The whole process is broken. The forces of reason need to fight back. Why can’t we go viral with reasonable views?”

We need the ink-stained wretches more than ever

I’m not particularly optimistic but, if you search enough through the gardens, you may find some green shoots of hope.

Filling the void left by the middle-of-the-night dirty deal between Torstar and Postmedia (that slit the throat of The Packet and Times) Orillia Matters and dozens of similar sites have sprouted. Dave Dawson, a Regional and Community Editor with Village Media says his company is actively hiring editors. It remains to be seen how digital news start-ups will flourish as local merchants become more sophisticated digital marketers, but the Orillia Matters crew is definitely fighting the good fight. 

Recently, Dawson also came to the decision that the comments section on his news sites had become too toxic and had to be shut down:

“This was not an easy decision as we strive to provide a variety of viewpoints but the comment section was no longer a safe or a sane place… We will no longer be a platform for toxicity and wild conspiracy theorists… Our hope is that it also serves another purpose, allowing us to get on with what should be our top priority: informing you on the critical issues that face our community.”

Front Porch Forum is a Vermont-based platform used by roughly a quarter of the state’s residents for all sorts of community activity and discussion. Front Porch doesn’t push users to post as much commentary as quickly as possible. Instead, it tries to slow it all down: Posts appear online the day after they were written. Sometimes, people reach out to the moderators to retract something said in anger. There are no avatars, and users must register with a Vermont address. People on the site interact with real neighbours, not anonymous mudslingers.

Their gross margins will take a hit, but behemoths like Facebook and Twitter have been leading us up the garden path for long enough. Isn’t it time we put a stop to their free ride and demand they weed their gardens in earnest?

There’s no reason, as citizens who care about our communities, that we shouldn’t demand tighter standards, require them to submit content to fact-checking before it goes live, and hold them accountable for every post on their sites – just like the ink-stained wretches have always had to do.

Ask your elected representatives what they plan on doing about it and support your local news organization.

*hogweed is a health and environmental risk. In humans, contact with hogweed sap together with exposure to light causes skin lesions similar to burns - kinda’ like lies and misinformation.