- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Advertisers Don’t Want Sites Like Jezebel to Exist::The ‘Brand Safety’ and ‘Suitability’ industries have financially crushed the news business by keeping ads away from articles that its ‘sentiment analysis’ algorithms think will make people sad or upset.
You must log in or # to comment.
Honestly if advertising brings about the end of “the worse the better” news media then I’m fine with that.
There’s too much outrage bait out there and the news needs to remember that it’s job is to inform people and make them enlightened, not give them emotional reactions and entrench them into ignorance.
Our entire news ecosystem is putrid trash. Even our most prestigious and respected outlets are pumping out a constant stream of genocide apologia right now. Manufacturing Consent is decades old and should’ve ended the New York Times, and that was before they cheerlead our war into Iraq.
Allowing advertising to decide which content is allowed and which isn’t won’t do anything but punish sites that deviate from mainstream orthodoxy and reward bland corporate friendly bullshit. Here’s what that Internet looks like.
I can’t take anyone who defends these Gawker media sites seriously.
Their entire premise was to be the biggest asshole possible, justify it using bastardized social justice talking points, and then imply everyone who calls them out is some kind of deplorable.
Jezebel published article after article of extremely offensive and cruel content. I’m pretty sure at one point they published an article about how they beat their spouses. Their former owner stated in court that he would publish a sex tape if the participant was older than 4. Their former EIC talked about how it was important to bully nerds into submission.
These people are fucking psychopaths. It’s a good thing they are done.
I’m also not 100 percent sure the premise of this is correct. There are tons of articles on abortion from less tabloid style news orgs.
Jezebel
Why can’t we just believe people (corporations) when they tell us straight-up who they are?
No, Advertisers don’t give half a shit if sites like Jezebel Exist, existence one way or another doesn’t matter to them. They just don’t want to advertise there.
You don’t get to push an image of your brand being edgy and saying the things “mainstream media” won’t say, and bitch about how brands don’t want their names associated with you. If you want to be edgy and extreme and controversial, fine, we won’t stop you Just don’t act surprised when companies don’t want to see a screenshot of their logo on the same page as a headline that you’ve styled as too edgy for popular media.
Generally agree. Though I’m not inclined to apply labels like “edgy” as if that’s accurate (or a negative thing). Covering tough topics is important. So are opinion pieces about it. That said…
“It’s lamentable but not surprising that Jezebel shut down because they covered provocative topics, topics that the electorate needed to be informed about and topics that people care about and that attract interest,” he added. “But advertisers are abdicating their responsibility to support news out of an unfounded fear that they might harm themselves.”
Suggesting it’s the responsibility of the advertisers to prop up news is wild. These two things should have been divorced years ago. I don’t know what the proper model is for sustainability of independent journalism, but the advertising model has always been one with acute influence problems.
Funny it doesn’t go both ways. Blue-chip companies are glad to rainbow up in June even if they show a history of underemploying LGBT folk and failing to acknowledge gay families. Heck, some of them support anti-LGBT activist groups while still flying rainbws.
I suspected it was about silencing Jezebel even though they are way less radical than the far-right interests they regard as stil brand safe… or are glad to support until the public notices.
It does go both ways, you’re just selectively ignoring it. Look at what happened to Bud Light, consumption is down and countless endorsements severed, because the company presented a message and an image that certain people didn’t like. The result is the same, if you present an image that people or companies don’t want to be associated with, they’re allowed to not associate with it.
It’s not even a question of being glad to support it until the public notices. Companies were probably glad to get the advertising until THEY noticed it, or until someone pointed out to them just what they were sharing a page with. Most big businesses, especially those going through a third party advertising company, couldn’t tell you where their ads will appear. Until it’s brought to their attention, they may not even know.
And again, nobody gave half a shit about silencing Jezebel, nobody went out of their way to punish or suppress them, all they did is just not give them money. Not giving someone money isn’t the same thing as silencing someone.
…sentiment analysis’ algorithms think will make people sad or upset.
By this logic news corps like Fox, OAN and Gateway Pundit wouldn’t be in business.
Anger and outrage are different than sad and upset though.
Sad and upset means withdrawn and most importantly not spending money.
ExxonMobil ads only on happy puppy articles! 🥰
no one does
