Editorial: Can Apple News+ kill 'fake news' and save journalism?

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited May 14
Apple's News+ subscription service threatens to kill the open web's surveillance advertising clickbait model of fake news engagement to save journalism. Why would Apple want or care to do that? Here's a look.


Services as software: Apple News+

Apple has portrayed News+ as an effort to save journalism. Lauren Kern, the editor-in-chief of Apple News, stated that the company is "committed to supporting quality journalism, and with Apple News+, we want to celebrate the great work being done by magazines and news outlets."

That might sound a bit over the top, but Apple has a strong commercial self-interest in not only keeping original news and storytelling alive but in making the photojournalism and wordcraft behind it successful in their own right.

Print journalism certainly does appear to need saving. According to data from Statistica, global magazine print revenues in 2015 were $86.07 billion. Next year in 2020, revenues are predicted to fall to $67.56 billion. That nearly $20 billion drop represents a precipitous decline in income as consumers increasingly ignore old fashioned, paper publications.


On the Web, Wired delivers the typical cluttered, annoying experience of free content desperately trying to optimize you as a product to sell to advertisers.


News+ pretty clearly aims to drive Apple's hardware sales with exclusive content the same way that Apple Arcade aspires to in gaming. It also shares the potential to deliver high margin Services revenue at the scale of Apple's vast installed base. And for every dollar Apple earns, it generates roughly the same amount to directly fund the content producers creating News+ material.

Unless you're an Apple shareholder, should you care about the money involved and who collects it? Absolutely you should.

If you prefer to pay for the kind of food you personally like rather than lining up at an ad-supported soup kitchen's feed trough, you should also support a system centered on innovation in art, design, technology and fashion that caters to your needs rather than an economy centered purely on innovation in advertising, where you pay nothing to line up as the product to be sold to advertisers.

News+ lets you vote for the production of high-quality content with your dollars. The alternative is more "getting what we've been paying for" on the "free" web. In a system where everything is "free," there's no freedom to vote for the kind of products you want.

Prior to iPhones, mobile operators were largely subsidizing handsets to the point of being free, erasing any drive or even ability for phone makers to build very innovative products. When Apple introduced a far more advanced product at a higher price, it attracted so much attention that it began to drive massive profits that funded relentless improvements. And as the price of high-end iPhones has pushed upward in tandem with interest in higher quality phones with better, larger displays and more advanced cameras, the advancements Apple can introduce have similarly increased.

The Netflix of Texture

Apple's News+ service is based upon its reportedly $485 million acquisition of Texture, the "Netflix of magazines." It was initially developed as a joint venture of old media firms quite obviously trying to preserve their own relevance in an increasingly digital world: Conde Nast, Hearst Magazines, Meredith Corporation, News Corp, Rogers Media, and Time Inc.


The Texture service launched as a digital copy of print magazines


It first launched in 2012 as "Next Issue," and relaunched as Texture in 2015. That year, the New York Post reported that the service had generated $15 million in subscription revenues for the magazines.

While Texture's subscriptions were reportedly growing by 50%, the new revenues that publishers were seeing from Texture's digital magazine distribution were effectively nothing compared to their print revenues. And they were in particular nothing when compared to how fast magazines' print revenues were declining.

Texture's $15 million contribution per year was absolutely inconsequential compared to the industry's overall losses of around $4 billion per year. Magazines sales were engulfed in flames and Texture was like a spritzer bottle.

That explains why Texture's owners were willing to hand over control to Apple in exchange for at least $145 million in payments over the first year and then at least $240 million in the second and third years. Apple promised to increase its digital revenues by an order of magnitude, and then kick in another 50 percent on top.


Publishers created Texture but sold it to Apple after failing to make it work themselves


That was fantastically better than publishers could do on their own, even if they were also leaking out a story about how terribly unfair it was that Apple was expecting to build a new business capable of generating enough revenues in total to be earning as much for itself as the publishers were getting paid for their content.

Like Spotify and Netflix, magazine publishers really expected Apple to do all the work of lining up customers, selling them on a new payment model, and processing their subscriptions but then expected to get-- not just an equitable share of the revenues generated-- but virtually everything. Of course, if Texture's media owners knew how to build an attractive digital magazine subscription service that generated hundreds of millions of dollars, they wouldn't have been stuck at just $15 million in revenues after three years of trying, and wouldn't desperately need the help of a company like Apple.

Apple examined the opportunity and decided that it could make News+ work. It appears that Apple is assuming most of the risk of failure. If users don't pay for News+, Apple will effectively be subsidizing the digital magazine service. But even if News+ doesn't make much money, it would still provide Apple with a valuable service that could help it sell iPads and Macs and make it that much more likely that subscribers would stick to buying iPhones in the future. That's worth a lot to a company that makes most of its money from premium hardware sales.

Having a massive installed base of affluent users gives Apple the luxury of being able to take risks that others can't. Google, Microsoft, and Samsung couldn't even sell music, have struggled to sell games, and certainly aren't trying to sell magazines. For Apple, iTunes music and App Store games have already been spectacular home runs. News+ could be next.

Apple's rough road to News+

Apple previously tried to help print periodicals find a digital market in the App Store with iOS 5's Newsstand in 2011, which was just a simple collection of publishers' own apps selling whatever form of digital magazines they wanted under their own subscription model.

Publishers, notably Conde Nast, did a terrible job at creating digital representations of their existing magazines, commonly dumping out a huge collection of static images that were slow to download and clumsy to navigate. News Corp also delivered a turd sandwich in producing The Daily, a brand new but totally boring digital magazine aimed at iPad users. It failed to attract enough subscribers to sustain the venture.

The Daily
News Corp.'s The Daily failed to attract enough attention


Initially, magazines including Wired announced pretty healthy results in selling digital issues on iPad, only to watch as their subscribers fell off rapidly within the year. One of the problems was that publishers were trying to charge significantly more for their digital downloads. A Wired subscription to the mailed-out paper version cost around $1 per issue, but despite the cheaper nature of digital distribution and no physical printing or use of paper, the magazine was asking $4 per digital copy from iPad users.

How well would iTunes have worked out if the price of digital album download had been set by music labels who demanded 4x the price of a CD, at a time when they were competing against free copies of their music on Napster?

Additionally, most magazines were offering nothing that took any real advantage of the dynamic, animated nature of being on an iPad. Publishers also had trouble serving up their own issues reliably, or delivering them in a form that caught readers' attention.

Rather than being anything similar to the casual, familiar experience of paging through physical magazines, trying to access their digital issues often felt more like being a librarian trying to track down some old report on microfiche. Why do that in our new digital era where content finds you?

The free news alternatives

On the web, Yahoo, Google, and Facebook have worked to create proprietary portals where users can get a "free" news feed for nothing apart from the cost of being tracked and monitored, and where the majority of the technology involved in delivering the news isn't going to journalists or photographers or news organizations, but to the developers of sophisticated interest and demographic tracking.

That's turned the original lightweight, open nature of the WWW into a complex system where most of the data driving news isn't content, but rather just spyware designed and optimized not to deliver news and information, but paid messages from anyone who has money to anyone who can line up an audience of consumers.

Google, Facebook, and other advertisers are generating huge revenues, but aren't splitting much of their huge wealth with news publishers. They are not even in the news content business. The revenues they collect are not from consumers paying for information. They are from advertisers looking to exploit audiences.


Google News delivers as a clean, sparse experience designed to search for information while selling you as a product to advertisers


That means the people paying for the system have interests that are not aligned with audiences getting their "news" for free. Why not just serve up fake news, which is far cheaper to produce than real content, based on the expensive nature of journalism, reporting, and storytelling?

Saving journalism by paying for it

With Newsstand, Apple was enabling publishers to collect their own revenues. Across the board, publishers failed to deliver a good product at a fair price that iOS users wanted to pay. However, the failure of Newsstand was largely blamed on Apple.

Steve Jobs' stated intention of helping publishers go digital with iPad was mocked and ridiculed by the media as if it were a grievous misreading of the market and an embarrassing engineering error that Apple should have felt ashamed about attempting, rather than being an issue of publishers not being able to create digital versions of their publications and deliver them in a form that enough readers would find worthwhile to pay for in a series of expensive subscriptions.

In 2015, Apple replaced the Newsstand folder in iOS 9 with its Apple News app. The new app took a more active role in formatting existing news content into a consistent form Apple could manage and deliver at scale. Apple greatly reduced publishers' ability to screw things up, resulting in a clean, consistent, attractive product that began to attract a significant readership.


In Apple News, Wired is presented as a valuable product you can subscribe to


The greatest remaining problem was that the only monetizing option in News was display ads, which didn't contribute sustainable revenues for Apple or its publisher sources, largely because Apple wasn't serving up enough ads. News+ hopes to address that the same way that Apple Arcade pays for game development: by attracting paying subscribers.

News+ in the model of Apple Arcade

News+ splits its subscription fees among Apple's partner publishers. The program not yet open to anyone who wants to publish, likely because Apple is first working to establish that News+ can work. In the future, it may enable publishers outside of the original Texture partners and the other publishers it invited into its News+ program, notably including LA Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Toronto Star, to plug their content into News+.

Right now, outside publishers can only publish into the free Apple News and still only monetize via ads, or alternatively sell their work as an app or subscription service on their own. That makes News and News+ essentially identical to the model of Apple Arcade alongside the independent games and game subscriptions that exist outside of Arcade in the App Store.

Like games for Arcade, News+ intends to be available across devices. In the future, we may see more video-centric news and features that adapt to viewing on Apple TV. It already includes rich online content from The Cut, theSkimm, Grub Street, Vox's Highlight, New York Magazine's Vulture, and TechCrunch's Extra Crunch.


News+ reformats articles to optimize the experience on mobile devices


But right now, the focus is on mobile iPhones, the larger canvas of iPads, and the convenience of being perusable on Macs, thanks to the UIKit on macOS frameworks Apple used to deliver News and Stocks in Mojave last summer.

Also like Arcade titles, News+ features layouts and design that make its content stand out from the generic web. The new format includes support for magazines with animated covers, and makes photography pop with animations. That could change the perception of digital magazines on iPad, particularly for photo-rich legendary periodicals including National Geographic, The New Yorker,Rolling Stone, Sports Illustrated, TIME, and Vanity Fair.

News+
News+ can organize content visually or using text, depending on the nature of the content


It's notable that News+ includes current and former issues of Wired, the quirky tech magazine that launched in 1993 during the Golden Age of Apple and then asked us to "pray" for the beleaguered brand in 1997, before it stumbled into the digital tablet age and is now in a position where it could use some saving from Apple.

Unlike Arcade, News+ is currently limited to the United States and Canada. But if Apple can build it into a platform that works to sell premium periodical and online content as a paid subscription, we could move past the surveillance advertising of the web and have rich access to high-quality content without incessant and privacy-abusing ads-- another feature News+ has in common with Arcade.

News+ in the model of Apple Music

So can Apple News+ save journalism? Consider how Apple previously "saved music." In 2001 when iPod appeared, music was being commonly stolen via file trading sites like Napster that took artists' work and made infinite copies that devastated the recorded music industry's CD business and devalued the entire nature of listening to recorded music.

Rather than buying and savoring an album, everyone could simply amass a hard drive full of ripped tracks, and listen to a few seconds of any imaginable song while paying nothing back into the system that organized the people who created, perfected, and packaged music for sale. People were not just ripping songs, but trashing the value of spending any time appreciating the work that went into making music or videos. "File sharers" effectively lost the appreciation for music as an art form.

iTunes, and Apple Music today, rebuilt that appreciation, linking songs with album art and encouraging listeners to support and even follow artists, recommend their work to friends, and enjoy music as an art form worthy of paying to support. Some of the efforts Apple made to add value to music have worked, such as album art and searchable lyrics, and some have been duds, including iTunes+ bonus features and the Ping social networking.




Take a look at the historical mix of revenues from recorded music globally during Apple's tenure. When iPod launched in 2001, virtually all revenues were coming from physical media, mostly CDs. Apple dominated the rise of digital downloads in iTunes, then pivoted to become a major player in streaming with Apple Music. The entire time, Apple not only broke even on downloads and streaming, but also made major hardware profits on sales of iPods, then iPhones, and most recently from sales of Apple Watch, AirPods, HomePod, and Beats-- all four of which are largely driven by music listeners.

Apple had a commercial interest in "saving music" that closely parallels its interest in having high-quality photojournalism and writing for its installed base of iPad and Mac users. The music of talented artists, like the wordcraft of storytellers, creates a positive, informative, entertaining, and enlightening experience for audiences to enjoy that they can be willing to pay for.

For iTunes, rather than just creating a downloads archive of user-generated songs or ripped-off bootleg tracks, Apple worked to create a sustainable market for high quality, professionally performed and recorded music in iTunes. Napster and other sites did the opposite, skimming "free" music and trying to sell the customers who came for "free" content as eyeballs to advertisers.

Today, it's Google and Facebook that are skimming headlines and giving people glanceable summaries of "news" that boil issues down into blurbs designed to generate maximize outrage, and therefore "engagement," which strings people through a series of advertising messages those sites are paid to inject into their news streams.

That "fake news" business model has devalued the work that goes into producing real journalistic content, and has effectively equated real reporting with crafted propaganda designed to simply sway political opinions or attack and vilify groups of people.

Facebook isn't investing in journalism. It's investing in new ways to categorize people in order to sell their attention to groups who want to shift their behavior. Google has long operated a News product, but that, like YouTube and all of the company's other efforts, serves to simply dangle out the least real content possible in order to string people along through a series of paid messages. This is pretty clearly destroying society far worse than the music stealing of twenty years ago.

By providing a real business model for credible, journalistic storytelling-- and particularly the time investing, in-depth type of content that takes effort to produce-- News+ isn't just claiming to save the world from facile streams of tawdry outrage, but is also creating something of value that intelligent people will be drawn to. And intelligent people generally have money.

News+ is another iTunes-like business in that it links people who create real content-- whether music, apps, games or written work and photography-- with people who want to enjoy real content and are ready to pay for high-quality work. As the middle man, Apple takes a cut of this business. But more importantly for Apple, it creates something of real value that is uniquely available on its platforms, giving its high-end, intellectual, and affluent audience another reason to buy an iPhone rather than a commodity Android that is just as good at scrolling through Facebook, or Google News headlines or WeChat but has nothing like News+.

Apple's mixed performance as a curator

The fact that Apple can curate high-quality content doesn't necessarily mean that it will. If its publishing partners just crank out junk that's not clearly better than free stuff that appears on the web, there won't be much more reason for today's subscribers to pay for News+ than there was back in 2011 for Newsstand apps.

Apple should be curating and enhancing content, and working to create visibility for talented work. Today's News app-- along with the news feed within Apple's Stocks app-- offers rather hit and miss curation that often promotes stuff that is embarrassing drivel, and clearly not any better than what's available for free on the web. That's most noticeable in the news coverage of Apple itself. Unless you specifically subscribe to better sources of Apple content, News app defaults to a bizarre mix of "Apple is doomed" bloggers and third rate financial entertainment sources.

Why does't Apple better promote the work of people who write interesting things about the company itself? Above Avalon, AnandTech, Ars Technica, Apple 3.0, AppleInsider, Asymco, Daring Fireball, iMore, Six Colors and other sources of good content are all News channels that users have to favorite manually. The defaults for news about Apple itself seem like they involve some sort of contractual obligation to Yahoo. Apple should rethink some of its defaults.

The level of frivolity that gets promoted in News is also high. There are entire "stories" that are nothing more than a dozen paragraphs discussing some non-notable tweet or two in sassy language-- those "people are saying" and "the Internet isn't having it" pieces-- that get promoted as top News articles. This sort of fake news devalues that very thing Apple should be building. On the other hand, a primary purpose of News as a way to promote News+ subscriptions highlights that Apple is so far working to balance free content with valuable paid content.



Apple's News curation is a mixed bag


The parallels between news articles and video games keep surfacing: Apple can only do so much to push publishers or studios to deliver their best work. But by creating a new subscription tier of higher value titles next to the free clickbait stories of News and the free iAP games in the App Store, it may be successful in moving beyond minimal value content to deliver a new class of intellectual exercise and effort that we'll want to pay for.

In parallel, Apple is also creating another Service that appears to be mostly-- or virtually entirely-- entertainment content that the company has produced itself. Will Apple TV+ successfully turn Apple from being merely a curator of other's talent, as it has been in iTunes and the App Store and as it plans with Apple Arcade and News+, into a producer of its original content with Apple TV+? The next article takes a look.
fotoformat
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 79
    Apple saved music with iTunes because the ripping of music was a known illegal activity.  And the price worked out by Steve Jobs was a good price.  Ninety nine cents per song made sense versus being forced to buy full albums.  Win/win for customers and artists.

    Magazines are so lame these days they can't be given away.  And that is when they do it legally online.  Most are political and their politics is very unattractive.  So who wants lame politics dressed up in a fancy graphical cover or with the NYT logo?  And Apple is likely to exclude political opinions it finds unacceptable, which means it will exclude what half the population wants.   I don't think Apple will exhibit a hearty appreciation of the wide open expression of ideas from across the spectrum. More likely it will be like Facebook and Twitter which censor voices that don't fit the liberal template.  If Apple does that with Apple News it will not be a big success or even a good product.
    designrberndoglkruppfrantisekredraider11williamhtoysandmebakedbananas
  • Reply 2 of 79
    correctionscorrections Posts: 1,363member
    Apple saved music with iTunes because the ripping of music was a known illegal activity.  And the price worked out by Steve Jobs was a good price.  Ninety nine cents per song made sense versus being forced to buy full albums.  Win/win for customers and artists.

    Magazines are so lame these days they can't be given away.  And that is when they do it legally online.  Most are political and their politics is very unattractive.  So who wants lame politics dressed up in a fancy graphical cover or with the NYT logo?  And Apple is likely to exclude political opinions it finds unacceptable, which means it will exclude what half the population wants.   I don't think Apple will exhibit a hearty appreciation of the wide open expression of ideas from across the spectrum. More likely it will be like Facebook and Twitter which censor voices that don't fit the liberal template.  If Apple does that with Apple News it will not be a big success or even a good product.
    Wrong: File sharing wasn’t initially regarded as illegal. Also, when iTunes opened the labels were already trying to sell their songs on new forms of physical media and digital through stores from a Microsoft, Sony and on their own. 

    Also, lots of magazines have great content that many people don’t see because they spend their free time scrolling through the Facebook feed of radical trash and outrage mongering. 

    Apple doesn’t exclude political opinions. Voices espousing hatred and violence are not open expressions from across the spectrum. The are terrorism and deserve to be silenced. 

    And if Facebook and Twitter actually used any sort of “liberal template” it wouldn’t be largely recruiting old people into right wing hate and rage, with funding from Russia seeking to destabilize the west by funding right wing nationalism. 
    thedarkhalfMacPromontrosemacsroundaboutnowbonoboblolliverkruegdudemuthuk_vanalingamjony0
  • Reply 3 of 79
    dewmedewme Posts: 2,099member
    I really despise the term "fake news" because it is too often used as chaff to deflect from any "news" that does not fit certain people's agendas and need for constant affirmation and adoration. Real "fake news" if we agree that it's a thing is no different than "propaganda" and we should just call it propaganda. As far as Apple doing anything to quell the proliferation of propaganda, I think it can help, but it cannot solve the problem. Propaganda plays on biases and the best way to suppress biases is to broaden one's experiences and exposure to information that allows a broader understanding of issues and life in general. So yes, if Apple News+ gets more people to learn about more perspectives and experience a much broader range of views and basic information, it can help. But it's the same old horse and water problem, so it is going to be a difficult challenge to get people out of their Foxholes and looking at more than just what they want to see.
    correctionsgeorgie01designrbonobobfrantisektoysandmemuthuk_vanalingamspacekidchemenginsteveau
  • Reply 4 of 79
    Macaroni108Macaroni108 Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    If Apple News is presenting CNN, MSNBC and the major news networks, and then censoring others, they are in fact directly promoting Fake News, since those outlets are the major sources of fake news. So how exactly will Apple 'save journalism'?
    edited May 12 pixelwashbig kcdesignrapple ][berndogacheron2018lkruppfrantisekbigtdsredraider11
  • Reply 5 of 79
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,366member
    Censored new? no thanks.
    I’m not interested in political correct(ed) information and other ‘moral’ corrections that make the world a safe place for children so they can grow up and buy more Apple stuff.
    I don't think Apple saved music, I think music tycoons tried to kill it by suing the public for downloading and asking way to much for the music in the first place and paying the artist way to little in the process.
    Buyers were buying the same song multiple  times on different formats, effectively being extorted by the record companies. 
    When freed by the internet lots of buyers took the chance.
    iTunes didn't remove the option to illegal (and sometimes legal) download (music) at all. NZB search nowadays is still the best option to find music and get it for free.
    Lots of people just do that.
    On the other hand, lots of people buy music because they choose so. The reasons vary, but I think its mostly because of fairness; a culture change because artist began addressing the public about it (after it became clear that suing the public and being employed by a record company wasn't such a good idea).
    toysandmepratikindia
  • Reply 6 of 79
    metrixmetrix Posts: 250member
    If Apple News is presenting CNN, MSNBC and the major news networks, and then censoring others, they are in fact directly promoting Fake News, since those outlets are the major sources of fake news. So how exactly will Apple 'save journalism'?
    I might tend to agree however since Fox is on an island by themselves meaning every other world news organization has been defined as CNN fake news I disagree. If Fox cannot make one criticism about the President it is worthless. Nope I am not a Demo, I am independent.
    thedarkhalfdedgeckomuthuk_vanalingamCarnagejony0
  • Reply 7 of 79
    pixelwashpixelwash Posts: 4unconfirmed, member
    Heartening to see the similarity of the earlier comments to my sentiment about Apple News: it is sourced from major sources of fake news - practically all so-called "mainstream" news outlets  (CNN, MSN, NBC, Conde Naste magazines, to name a few) these days are hugely in debt (except strangely, Murdoch's FOX), and thus are basically owned by the banks, or represent the views of the finance community ie Bloomberg (remember their fake Chinese spy chips story?) and believe me the banks and financiers HAVE big agendas - they tend to be pro petrochemical price influencing wars, and also tend to be big on creating wars and fostering nationalistic fear mongering in general, and are big on justifying destabilization of governments in cheap oil producing countries (to artificially hike the price of oil to justify the trillions of dollars they have invested in more expensive to extract petrochemicals ie shale oil and deep ocean oil.)  (https://variety.com/2019/biz/features/att-disney-comcast-debt-1203107407/)

    Most "mainstream media" are also anti libertarian ie anti Trump, and they tend to be pro nuclear energy ie they push the theory that mankind's CO2 emissions are a major cause of global climate change so that the trillions of dollars that the British and French and US governments spent and continue to spend on nuclear energy is justified, and can be further leveraged, despite the fact that there is no way to get rid of the waste, and it remains dangerous for tens of THOUSANDS of years...

    Obama okayed the building of two new reactors in the USA, and Britain plans to build two new ones also, and most power in France is generated by toxic non-renewable nuclear energy...

    The days of the mainstream newspapers being largely supported by the classified sections ie tens of thousands of small advertisers, and their resultant consequent potential for relative journalistic independence, are well and truly dead......

    The New York Times continues to represent the interests of the finance community in New York, and the Washington Post is unashamedly a propaganda platform for Bezos, and is pro war, and pro nationalistic fear mongering because the main source of Bezos companies' research and development budgets (including Amazon's) is the US military and the US secret military budget ie taxpayers.
    edited May 12 toysandmechemengin
  • Reply 8 of 79
    georgie01georgie01 Posts: 248member
    Fake news? It astounds me that people blind themselves to fake story after story being published by top news agencies. I can’t even remember the last time I read an objective news story about an important cultural issue. 

    For instance, we’ve been hearing about Trump’s ‘collision’ presented as if it were fact by major news outlets, for years.

    Further, if some evil people in Russia went to gatherings of homosexuals and killed them simply because they were gay we’d be continuously hearing and reading about it as if it were the worst and most significant thing that has happened. However, when the same thing happened to Christians we have ‘leaders’ not even willing to identify them as Christians. Censoring news because it doesn’t fit a cultural agenda is also fake news.

    We live in a country where fake news is the majority of news presented to us.
    designrberndogfrantisekbigtdstoysandmeSpamSandwichElCapitan
  • Reply 9 of 79
    metrix said:
    If Apple News is presenting CNN, MSNBC and the major news networks, and then censoring others, they are in fact directly promoting Fake News, since those outlets are the major sources of fake news. So how exactly will Apple 'save journalism'?
    I might tend to agree however since Fox is on an island by themselves meaning every other world news organization has been defined as CNN fake news I disagree. If Fox cannot make one criticism about the President it is worthless. Nope I am not a Demo, I am independent.
    You obviously never watch Fox. I just watched a Chris Wallace round table and all they gave was criticism of Trump.
    macseekerberndogbigtdsanantksundaramspacekidapetersonchemengin
  • Reply 10 of 79
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,680member
    Any news content curated by leftists will indeed be fake news.

    All of the major news outlets have been engaging in fake news for years now, pushing a hoax.

    Apple also donates to questionable hate groups such as the SPLC. 

    I like Apple products a whole lot, but I will definitely be passing on anything that's related to news and curated by Apple.
    edited May 12 big kcdesignracheron2018lkruppfrantisekbigtdsKentfromohiowilliamhtoysandmeknowitall
  • Reply 11 of 79
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,680member
    You obviously never watch Fox. I just watched a Chris Wallace round table and all they gave was criticism of Trump.
    Fox is horrible these days.

    When I recently saw that Fox had hired Donna Brazile, that was the last straw and I immediately dumped them from my cable channel lineup. She was the cheater who was caught cheating and leaking debate questions when she was at CNN to the Clinton campaign when they were up against Bernie.
    edited May 12 bigtdsSpamSandwichspacekid
  • Reply 12 of 79
    designrdesignr Posts: 511member
    dewme said:
    I really despise the term "fake news" because it is too often used as chaff to deflect from any "news" that does not fit certain people's agendas and need for constant affirmation and adoration. Real "fake news" if we agree that it's a thing is no different than "propaganda" and we should just call it propaganda. As far as Apple doing anything to quell the proliferation of propaganda, I think it can help, but it cannot solve the problem. Propaganda plays on biases and the best way to suppress biases is to broaden one's experiences and exposure to information that allows a broader understanding of issues and life in general. So yes, if Apple News+ gets more people to learn about more perspectives and experience a much broader range of views and basic information, it can help. But it's the same old horse and water problem, so it is going to be a difficult challenge to get people out of their Foxholes and looking at more than just what they want to see.
    I think it's more than merely being exposed to a wider variety of information.

    The true antidote to "fake news" or propaganda (as you correctly describe it) is a public educated enough to recognize it and overcome it. Specifically education in the area of the logical fallacies that many media articles, personalities and politicians (on all sides) traffic in would be a strong antidote.

    From there, ideally the "marketplace of news, ideas and information" would be regulated by people's non-acceptance of that which is "fake" (propaganda).

    But this is a tough challenge and it needs to start from a fairly early age.

    What might help in the shorter term is for the sources we use to recommit to real journalism...fact-checking...unbiased reporting instead of just saying they're unbiased. This is potentially easier. But one problem I see is that those providing even partially biased and subjective and fallacious "news" stories are blind to the fact they're doing it. Blinded by their biases and assumptions that they're just right or as some simplistically claim "on the right side of history" so their opinions and subjective, biases slants appear as objective facts to them. But this requires people at the helm (editors and editorial boards) that are genuinely committed to this and holding their people's feet to the fire: news is for real, fact-based, fact-checked, objective journalism...the editorial page is for opinions.
    berndog
  • Reply 13 of 79
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 652member
    No.
    The problem is that "fake news" a term I detest, no longer means "propaganda put out for nefarious purposes by the bad guys". It now means "Anything I don't happen to agree with and anyone who puts out stuff I disagree with is therefore the bad guys." So Apple News+ may uphold the highest journalistic standards, but all that means is that it will get labeled "Fake News" and "Main Stream Media" by those who most should be reading it. 
    No Apple can't save journalism. Which is too bad.
    MacPromontrosemacschemengin
  • Reply 14 of 79
    danoxdanox Posts: 387member
    Those who live in the southeastern part of America or the midwest (fly over places) the world is passing you by, Apple can't save the stupid area's of America, Apple also can't save the old-line Newspapers, or magazines who are 25 years into the internet age and still have no clue about tech or how use it they seem to want a white knight to save them from themselves and that will not happen.
  • Reply 15 of 79
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,680member
    DAalseth said:
    No.
    The problem is that "fake news" a term I detest, no longer means "propaganda put out for nefarious purposes by the bad guys". It now means "Anything I don't happen to agree with and anyone who puts out stuff I disagree with is therefore the bad guys." So Apple News+ may uphold the highest journalistic standards, but all that means is that it will get labeled "Fake News" and "Main Stream Media" by those who most should be reading it. 
    No Apple can't save journalism. Which is too bad.
    I just did something which I have rarely ever done.

    I just clicked on the Apple News App on my Mac and took a quick look at it.

    These are the trending stories at this very moment:

    1) Buzzfeed

    17 Pets Whose Weird Fur Markings Will Make You Love Them Even More

    2) People

    Meghan Markle Shares New Photo of Archie on First Mother's Day — with Tribute to Princess Diana

    3) Fox News

    Burger King workers call cops on snarling woman with seven syringes inside of her

    4) NBC

    Weekend Update: Trump Lost Over $1 Billion

    5) CNN

    This is what Kamala Harris' stepchildren call her

    6) CNN

    YouTuber James Charles has lost almost 2 million subscribers since his feud with Tati Westbrook


    I'll be just fine without any of that "news". 


    designrhentaiboyberndoganantksundarammuthuk_vanalingambakedbananasElCapitanjdb8167
  • Reply 16 of 79
    designrdesignr Posts: 511member
    danox said:
    Those who live in the southeastern part of America or the midwest (fly over places) the world is passing you by, Apple can't save the stupid area's of America...
    Wow. Seriously?!

    Your statement is exhibiting text book stereotyping and prejudice. You okay with that?

    edited May 12 berndogbigtdswilliamh
  • Reply 17 of 79
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,680member
    danox said:
    Those who live in the southeastern part of America or the midwest (fly over places) the world is passing you by, Apple can't save the stupid area's of America, Apple also can't save the old-line Newspapers, or magazines who are 25 years into the internet age and still have no clue about tech or how use it they seem to want a white knight to save them from themselves and that will not happen.
    I'm definitely not in the midwest or one of the "flyover" places as liberals like to call it, but I'm going to defend them. I'm in a large metropolitan area, one of the biggest, but it can definitely be argued where the stupid areas of America are and where most of the stupid and delusional people can be found. I would argue that they can largely be found in certain feces infested places close to the coasts and without many of those places in the middle that liberals despise, the backbone of the US, all of those elitist morons who are in actuality ignorant, hateful losers would starve to death in a week or two. It would be a fun experiment to see played out sometime. 

    edited May 12 macseekerberndogbigtdswilliamhmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 18 of 79
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 716member
    I've been using Apple News since the day it came out. Apart from the fact that the News app crashes every two minutes, my main concern is that the curation acts as a censoring of my news. If Apple had a flag that lets me turn curation on and off, I'd be happy and I'd probably stick with the service forever. But I think Apple feels it is their moral duty to decide which news we get. It was just a couple of weeks ago an AppleInsider story spoke about Apple's moral duties: https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/04/24/designers-have-social-duties-beyond-a-products-launch-says-apples-jony-ive"The much more complex responsibilities are in the realm of the social and the cultural"
  • Reply 19 of 79
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 652member
    apple ][ said:
    DAalseth said:
    No.
    The problem is that "fake news" a term I detest, no longer means "propaganda put out for nefarious purposes by the bad guys". It now means "Anything I don't happen to agree with and anyone who puts out stuff I disagree with is therefore the bad guys." So Apple News+ may uphold the highest journalistic standards, but all that means is that it will get labeled "Fake News" and "Main Stream Media" by those who most should be reading it. 
    No Apple can't save journalism. Which is too bad.
    I just did something which I have rarely ever done.

    I just clicked on the Apple News App on my Mac and took a quick look at it.

    These are the trending stories at this very moment:

    1) Buzzfeed

    17 Pets Whose Weird Fur Markings Will Make You Love Them Even More

    2) People

    Meghan Markle Shares New Photo of Archie on First Mother's Day — with Tribute to Princess Diana

    3) Fox News

    Burger King workers call cops on snarling woman with seven syringes inside of her

    4) NBC

    Weekend Update: Trump Lost Over $1 Billion

    5) CNN

    This is what Kamala Harris' stepchildren call her

    6) CNN

    YouTuber James Charles has lost almost 2 million subscribers since his feud with Tati Westbrook

    I'll be just fine without any of that "news". 


    Part of the problem is that the free Apple News is so piss poor that I've found no reason to try News+. I looked around News as well and found nothing but click bait stories like you mentioned. Apparently the good stuff is behind the paywall. I'll stay with my trusted sources (BBC and CBC). 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 20 of 79
    designrdesignr Posts: 511member
    apple ][ said:
    danox said:
    Those who live in the southeastern part of America or the midwest (fly over places) the world is passing you by, Apple can't save the stupid area's of America, Apple also can't save the old-line Newspapers, or magazines who are 25 years into the internet age and still have no clue about tech or how use it they seem to want a white knight to save them from themselves and that will not happen.
    I'm in a large metropolitan area, one of the biggest, but it can definitely be argued where the stupid areas of America are and where most of the stupid and delusional people can be found. I would argue that they can largely be found in certain feces infested places close to the coasts and without many of those places in the middle that liberals despise, the backbone of the US, all of those elitist morons who are in actuality ignorant, hateful losers would starve to death in a week or two. It would be a fun experiment to see played out sometime

    I'd be the first to agree that there's a fair amount of arrogance emanating from the coastal areas that often derisively dismiss "flyover country" (or other areas that they deem to be stupid or "on the wrong side of history"). And I also suspect I disagree with folks that happen to inhabit those areas on many issues. But your response is pretty harsh and inflammatory. I think we can all do better than this.
    muthuk_vanalingamCarnage
Sign In or Register to comment.