Skip to main content

Facebook, The Media And That Picture, News Has Changed Forever

Facebook gave a glimpse of the power it holds over the news media last week and the media didn't like it. This story isn't about the Nick Ut's war-defining 'Napalm Girl' image, but it is about a changing face of news ownership that even now some media outlets fail to recognise.

The bare facts of the story were that the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten was dinged several times by Facebook for publishing the image to their site as part of a series on photojournalism and its impact on warfare.

Facebook rejected the image on the basis that it contravened the site's rules on nudity. Aftenposten published the rejection notice and its editor posted a response in an open letter to Mark Zuckenberg condemning Facebook's abuse of editorial power.

Espen Egil Hansen complained that not only was Facebook abusing editorial power but that, in deleting posts responding to the original image removal, it was also shutting down criticism or discussion of the decision.

Hansen is wrong, but also he's missed the very real and potentially dangerous shift in power that has given Facebook the ability to shape the news going forward.

Firstly, ownership. Facebook has rules for its site and for what may be published on the site. The image of a young Kim Phuc, with her clothes burnt off in after a Napalm attack, clearly contravened those rules. Newspaper editors at the time would have been faced with those same rules and they were able to use their judgement and experience to decide that this was an appropriate time to break those rules.

On the other hand Aftenposten's posts and the image were probably picked up by an algorithm that identified a possible contravening image, was probably reviewed by a member of staff without any context (especially if they were younger and had no previous exposure to it) who confirmed the content and sent the take-down notice, before eventually deleting the image and reposts of the same.

It is Facebook's site and decisions on what can an can't be posted remain Facebook's. The court of public opinion prevailed in this instance, because of the fame of the image. However my guess is that Facebook users didn't care one way or another. The older users of the site know of the image and its context and didn't need to see the image in the post, the younger users are more interested in today's issues than in the horrors of the past, rightly or wrongly.

If Facebook had held out and refused to publish the picture I don't believe that anyone would have cared, especially once the media at large had moved onto its next sensation.

What about if the image was created here and now, today. Would it have even been published? Facebook would have rejected the image and there would have been no media backlash, no court of public opinion to change that decision.

And with other parts of the social media conversation abiding by similar rules on their own sites, failure to go viral through re-shares would have buried the image forever, in amongst the billions of others that compete for attention today.

How many other stories, how many other pictures equally as important, as telling as Ut's Vietnam war image, disappear into the ether without ever gaining the momentum, the reposts, the shares to raise the awareness of the stories that we should be concerned about? In that respect Facebook has come to define the stories that can and will form part of our history and that's a lot of power to concentrate on one group.

Newspapers around the globe need to reconsider how they respond this challenge, because they're too busy fighting for clicks to fight for what's important. And that might just be the biggest lesson to come from this whole incident.


Popular posts from this blog

F1: Robert Kubica Impresses In Renault Test Run

The car may be old but its the performance of the driver that's the story here. Robert Kubica returned to F1, after a fashion, earlier this week with an extensive test run in a 2012 Lotus Renault F1 car at Valencia.
The age of the car and the circuit were likely determined by F1's current rules which ban testing, but the reason for Kubica being in the car is far more interesting. Considered by many to be a potential World Champion and certainly one of the fastest drivers of his generation, Kubica's F1 career seemed to be over after a 2011 crash whilst driving in the Rally of Andora. His Skoda Fabia was penetrated by a guardrail in the high speed accident partially severing his right arm.
Up until last year Kubica has been competing in rallying, with the expectation that the limited movement in his repaired arm would prohibit a return to single seater racing.
So this week's test is both interesting and confusing. Interesting because Kubica completed 115 laps of the ret…

F1: Robert Kubica's Williams Test Asks More Questions Than It Answers

Comparing driver's times at a tyre evaluation test like last week's Abu Dhabi event is difficult at the best of times, but when trying to assess the performance of a driver who has been out of the sport for six years, that difficulty level is raised even higher.
On the face of it Robert Kubica's test for Williams was a success. Fastest of the three Williams drivers present the headlines look promising. However, taking into consideration the different tyres used to set those times muddies the water considerably.
Kubica ran a three lap qualifying simulation on the new 'hyper-soft' tyre - which should have given him a two-second advantage. Correcting for tyres it would appear that Kubica was significantly slower than Sergei Sorotkin - who was on the harder 'soft' tyre - and marginally quicker than Lance Stroll, the team's only contracted driver.

Stroll's family fortune currently funds Williams, so there' no chance that he will be anywhere but in a…

Panos Panay's Defence Of Microsoft Surface Hardware Sounds Eerily Familiar

This weekend I went out with my ten year old daughter to select a laptop for her school year beginning in January. The schools requirements are quite specific, requiring a Windows 10 device, with a preference for a touchscreen and a stylus. She chose a Surface Pro, after trying a large number of different options. Having seen the way I use my own Surface Pro - and tried it herself there was only ever going to be two options - and the other was a Surface Laptop.
I tell you this so that you understand I am a buyer of Microsoft's products through choice, not compulsion. I'm on my third Surface device now. 
So when Panos Panay dismissed reports of the death of the Surface hardware line, I was very interested to see exactly how strong these denials were. Especially how they reflect what has gone before. To whit: Windows 10 Mobile.
Panay claimed that Microsoft is in hardware for the long haul. Almost exactly mirroring the words of Terry Myerson, when he claimed Windows Mobile was g…