
Facebook Forces NYT to Quietly Delete Unflattering Reference to Sheryl Sandberg - uptown
https://lawandcrime.com/exclusive/facebook-forces-nyt-to-quietly-delete-unflattering-reference-to-sheryl-sandberg-in-story-about-russian-trolls/
======
danso
FWIW, a NYT article undergoes many changes from the time it was originally
posted to whatever its final state (usually, the next day, after the print
edition). The story in question was just a few paragraphs when it was first
posted, and then more details were added. You can use newsdiffs.org to see the
various changes:

[http://newsdiffs.org/article-
history/https%3A/www.nytimes.co...](http://newsdiffs.org/article-
history/https%3A/www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-alex-
stamos.html)

Here is the specific diff where the Sandberg reference was changed:

[http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1652560/1652801/https%3A/www.nytim...](http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1652560/1652801/https%3A/www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-
alex-stamos.html)

That said, if the explicit conflict between Stamos and Sandberg was a
prominent detail, then many folks would argue that the NYT should have a
clarification or editor's note explaining the change. However, it's worth
noting that the reference to the conflict between Sandberg and Stamos is _not_
omitted from the final edition.

Original:

> _Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating
> and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of
> other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief
> operating officer, according to the current and former employees, who asked
> not to be identified discussing internal matters._

Final:

> _Mr. Stamos joined Facebook from Yahoo in June 2015. He and other Facebook
> executives, such as Ms. Sandberg, disagreed early on over how proactive the
> social network should be in policing its own platform, said the people
> briefed on the matter. In his statement, Mr. Stamos said his relationship
> with Ms. Sandberg was “productive.”_

The latter reference seems to be just as damning to Sandberg when it comes to
her complacency in policing the FB platform, though it doesn't say that her
disagreement with Stamos was specifically about the Russia question.

You could still argue that this merits a clarification, i.e. _A previous
version of this story stated that Ms. Sandberg disagreed with Mr. Stamos in
his advocacy for "investigating and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook".
However, Mr. Stamos said that he and Sandberg disagreed in general with how
proactive Facebook should be in policing its own platform, but the two never
specifically debated the issue with respect to revelations of Russian
interference_.

~~~
greenyoda
Original: "investigating and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook".

Final: "policing its own platform"

Note that the reference to disagreement about _disclosing_ the information was
removed. This seems like a significant change.

~~~
danso
Keep reading:

> _Mr. Stamos would be the first high-ranking employee to leave Facebook since
> controversy over disinformation on its site. Company leaders — including
> Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, and_ Sheryl Sandberg, the chief
> operating officer — have struggled to address a growing set of problems,
> including Russian interference on the platform _, the rise of false news and
> the disclosure over the weekend that 50 million of its user profiles had
> been harvested by Cambridge Analytica, a voter-profiling company._

Sandberg's name, and the inability to address growing problems "including
Russian interference", are _all in the same sentence_. If Sandberg called in a
favor for this, it was a pretty weak-ass favor. I don't think it matches the
OP's assessment that Sandberg re: Russia was "wiped clean off the ether".

In fact, it seems the OP itself requires a correction, because it made the
same mistake you did:

> _Now, Sandberg’s name and the story’s only reference to her alleged role in
> frustrating Stamos’ attempts to highlight and root out Russian troll
> influence on the platform are gone because someone at the New York Times
> replaced the entire sentence._

Again, people can argue that maybe Sandberg asked NYT to move the reference to
later in the story. But I mean, there's still the issue of why Sandberg would
not pressure NYT to hold off on this story which is extremely damaging to FB
as a whole.

------
packeted
It's also interesting that there is barely a mention of all this in my news
feed on Facebook and there have been no links to it as a trending story.

~~~
threeseed
It is a trending story for me on Facebook.

Interestingly the lead article is, "Here's how to see which apps have access
to your Facebook - and cut them off".

------
fnayr
Where's Zuckerberg in all of this? It's strange with all the controversies
hitting and the stock crash that he hasn't made any sort of public statement
(unless I missed it?).

~~~
justboxing
He's been super busy dumping a whole lot of his Facebook Shares before the
Sh*t hit the fan.[1][2]

Sources:

[1] Zuckerberg has sold more Facebook stock in the last 3 months than any
insider at any other company => [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/zuckerbergs-
facebook-stock-s...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/zuckerbergs-facebook-
stock-selling-dwarfs-all-other-insiders.html)

[2] Zuckerberg saved tens of millions of dollars by selling Facebook stock
ahead of Monday’s decline: [https://www.marketwatch.com/story/zuckerberg-
saved-tens-of-m...](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/zuckerberg-saved-tens-
of-millions-by-selling-facebook-stock-ahead-of-monday-decline-2018-03-19)

~~~
Lightbody
I'm super frustrated with Facebook, but this is conspiracy theory territory.
Place the anger in the right direction.

Those trades were part of his 10b5-1, a scheduled trading plan set in place at
a minimum 3 months ahead of time and typically extends out 12+ months. Trades
in the plan are protected from insider trading accusations and considered an
"affirmative defense" [1].

While you can trade shares outside your 10b5-1 plan, those trades aren't
protected from insider trading accusations.

[1] [https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/03/24/a-guide-to-
rule-1...](https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/03/24/a-guide-to-
rule-10b5-1-plans/)

~~~
shanghaiaway
Both links contain facts not stories.

You came up with the idea that there would be a conspiracy. You are the
conspiracy theorist.

~~~
threeseed
It's a conspiracy theory to state or insuniate that Zuckerberg is committing a
crime in order to save some money.

Especially given that the facts are that (a) selling stock involves a lot of
people, (b) Zuckerberg has gone on record saying he will be selling stock, (c)
he has plans for politics/philanthropy which will depend on an intact
reputation and (d) he will be so rich i.e. multi-billionaire regardless that
it seems strange to risk jail time for a few hundred million.

If you make claims. Then you need to back them up.

~~~
shanghaiaway
I didn't make claims nor did anyone else. There's only facts that he's been
selling stock.

------
gervase
Is there any evidence that this change was the result of external pressure
from Facebook, rather than as the result of internal NYT editing?

Articles frequently change in content, titles, and so on after publication,
after all - that's why HN has to update titles so frequently.

Edit: Whoops, missed it the first read-through. Looks like the change _was_
confirmed by the original reporter to be as the result of a request from the
Facebook PR team.

~~~
adambyrtek
Respectable sites usually include a list of corrections and changes made to an
article after publication.

When it comes to submission titles, HN has a tendency to change them for no
obvious reason even if the original title hasn't changed.

~~~
tptacek
NYT stories routinely change, sometimes substantially, between online and
print versions, without corrections.

There used to be a site that tracked this.

~~~
zevyoura
You may be thinking of [http://newsdiffs.org](http://newsdiffs.org)

Here's the page for the article in question: [http://newsdiffs.org/article-
history/https%3A/www.nytimes.co...](http://newsdiffs.org/article-
history/https%3A/www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-alex-
stamos.html)

------
donohoe
As someone who worked at the NYT for 8 years and saw the inner workings I want
to say the main assesrtions of this article are FALSE. Seriously. WTF

~~~
stochastic_monk
Please be clearer. Which claims do you not think are true, and what
reasons/evidence do you have behind your assertions?

Do you mean the assertion that NYT made these changes in response to being
reached by Facebook's PR team? (This is difficult to prove but suggested by
the facts we have.)

Do you mean the assertion that the NYT regularly changes headlines in response
to criticism of those being covered? (This is alleged, but I have no proof of
this.)

Do you mean the assertion that Facebook contacted the Times after the article
was published? (I highly doubt that this is false, and it being true suggests
that the first point was true.)

~~~
donohoe
I was on the subway so I couldn’t dig deep.

In short, the opening paragraph, which the article leans on struck a nerve.

    
    
      The New York Times offers powerful third parties the ability to
      edit away–that is, to delete from the internet–unfavorable coverage
      appearing in the paper of record’s online edition.
    

It’s false. The editorial process is pretty rigorous. No company has a magic
“edit” button.

The article goes through rounds of edits post-publish. It’s a established
process and not done as-hoc.

~~~
fancyfacebook
Nobody at Facebook pushed a button, but the article was edited to remove an
unflattering reference to Sheryl Sandberg after a phone call from Facebook PR.

Also, just because you work(ed) at a company it does not mean you are fully
aware of everything that goes on there, so don't make blanket statements about
what can or can't happen.

Employees are often some of the least informed about the inner workings of an
organization, as they tend to dismiss uncomfortable findings out of hand and
refuse to read about them.

~~~
stochastic_monk
Exactly. While I have generally held the NYT in high regard, the whitewashing
of their coverage after being contacted by Facebook's PR team is immensely
concerning.

~~~
danso
The NYT reporters have denied that Facebook's PR had any influence, so why do
you take OP at its word when there is no proof otherwise?

Furthermore, those same NYT reporters who apparently were cowed by Sandberg
and Facebook PR published another article _that same day_ in which the focus
is on the disgruntled CSO:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/technology/alex-stamos-
fa...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/technology/alex-stamos-facebook-
security.html)

This was part of Facebook's PR push too?

~~~
stochastic_monk
That is an excellent point. The authors of the article you've provided are
both authors on the edited article. It may be simply coincidence. In the
absence of other information, I was concerned, albeit understanding `post hoc
ergo propter hoc`. Taken with this, it seems that they perhaps wanted separate
emphases for separate articles.

~~~
danso
It wouldn't be coincidence because they were the reporters to have gotten this
inside information from their sources. Their followup, which focuses on how
Stamos got fucked over for his stance against Russian interference, is long
enough that it would have had to been mostly written by the time FB is alleged
to have put pressure on NYT to change the first story.

------
tptacek
This story doesn't appear to back up the headline. Unless I've missed
something, it says that Facebook PR reached out to the NYT, and that the
article was edited. That might mean Facebook "demanded" changes, or it might
mean that they pointed out errors or additional facts that warranted the
correction.

~~~
danso
You are correct based on what's written. The author implies that Facebook PR
reached out to NYT -- but doesn't claim what Facebook PR wanted or how the NYT
reacted. This fact (the NYT agrees that FBPR contacted them) is juxtaposed
with the observation that people are mad the NYT removed this graf from the
original 300-word breaking news story:

> _Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating
> and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of
> other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief
> operating officer, according to the current and former employees..._

This is definitely an interesting graf, but I don't (and neither do the NYT
reporters, ostensibly) think that it's the key part of the story, not even of
the 300-word blurb. In any case, this blurb was updated (rather, replaced) by
a 1,300 article at the end of the day:

[http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1652560/1652801/https%3A/www.nytim...](http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1652560/1652801/https%3A/www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-
alex-stamos.html)

The critics of NYT think that the "consternation" line should not have been
erased because it apparently is so directly damning of how Sandberg was
resistant to deal with Russian interference. The NYT reporters have disagreed;
they see the 1000+ words adding far more evidence of how Stamos tried to warn
FB.

In any case, the article author is trying to associate 3 unrelated events
together:

\- NYT made a major update/rewrite of its article about Facebook

\- People are mad that the most damning line against Sandberg (re: Russia) was
watered down

\- Facebook PR contacted NYT after the first version of the story/blurb was
published.

The OP has a hypothesis. But no evidence to support it. "Facebook Forces NYT"
is not the right headline because the author never purports to prove or claim
that Facebook forced NYT to do anything.

------
botskonet
The NY Times twitter accounts are saying this is false:

[https://twitter.com/NYTimesPR/status/976499121799483394](https://twitter.com/NYTimesPR/status/976499121799483394)

------
danso
My main argument for incompetence vs. malice is not necessarily that the NYT
is too good to be corruptible/pressured, but because the purported gain (in
favor of FB) is so small.

Let's assume the NYT can be influenced to change/kill stories. After all, the
Obama administration was able to get the NYT to delay/suppress stories on
national security grounds [0], and this doesn't count all the stories that
have been starved because of discouragement/apathy by editors.

But these are stories that have been stopped before they saw the light of day.
This reference to Sandberg was published in a widely-publicized (i.e. banner
breaking news headline on nytimes.com) breaking news story. To censor it for
any reason is going to be a difficult and embarrassing _and noticeable_
decision, and one that is going to piss off someone in the editorial chain
(e.g. the reporter, or her editor).

So if Sandberg has the ability to pressure the NYT to revoke this reference,
_why would she do it now_? The story is already a major clusterfuck for
Facebook because it ties the abrupt dismissal of Facebook's _entire security
team_ to allegations about Russian/CA malfeasance on FB's platform. How much
face does Sandberg save when the entire company is eating shit, with Sandberg
at the helm and being conspicuously absent from making a public statement?

If Sandberg had editorial power, don't you think she would've exercised it by
having prior review of the entire story? If the NYT editors were so afraid of
her that they'd cave in to pressure to retroactively edit a story in her
favor, don't you think they would've brought this story to her attention
_before publishing it as a breaking news item_ and spreading it all over
Twitter?

NYT famously has one of the most anal-retentive social media policies among
all media organizations. If Sandberg had real influence, NYT reporters would
not be tweeting this kind of stuff about her:

[https://twitter.com/sheeraf/status/975899584550465537](https://twitter.com/sheeraf/status/975899584550465537)

[https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/975793549076611072](https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/975793549076611072)

FWIW, the author of the NYT article in question has responded to the claims
made by the submitted Law & Crime article:

[https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/976156184909553664](https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/976156184909553664)

[https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/976157825331216384](https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/976157825331216384)

[0] [https://www.wnyc.org/story/nyt-reporter-james-risen-
reportin...](https://www.wnyc.org/story/nyt-reporter-james-risen-reporting-
during-war-terror/)

~~~
mannykannot
I do not see that there is any relevance to this case in the NYT being
sensitive to national security issues - that is clearly not an issue here. And
if issues of importance have routinely been "starved because of
discouragement/apathy by editors" (as opposed to possibly flawed judgements of
importance), then it would be helpful to your argument if you could enumerate
them.

No-one is suggesting that Sandberg had the editorial power of reviewing all
Facebook-related articles before they were published, so the question of why
she did not suppress this article before it first appeared does not arise.
NYTs failure to seek permission beforehand can adequately be explained by a)
it didn't expect the response it got and b) if it were in the habit of seeking
such approval, it would destroy its brand, and its reason for existence.

The issue is that the NYT caved in to a demand without even following its
normal policy of explaining a correction, and this is a serious matter
regardless of whether Sandberg or Facebook were ill-advised to follow this
course of action.

The article's author's responses look to me like an attempt at damage control,
in that they talk around the central issue with heavy use of weasel words. If
the original was deleted because it was superseded by a clearer follow-up, why
is the follow-up notably unclear on this very issue?

~~~
danso
> _The issue is that the NYT caved in to a demand without even following its
> normal policy of explaining a correction,_

If you start with this premise then you are already begging the question. That
is, it's not a given that this revision benefits Sandberg, nevermind that she
pulled the strings to make it happen. The reporters' responses have been that
the story has been revised to add additional detail (which includes doubling
the mentions of Sandberg by name). If you think Sandberg doesn't have such a
cozy relationship as to have prior-review power -- or more likely, the
suppressive power of reporters being told not to pursue such embarrassing
scoops in the first place -- then her asking for this change is going to
rankle feathers. So she made this demand, but was OK with the reporters adding
this completely unnecessary mention of how reputation-paranoid Sandberg and
Zuckerberg are?

> _The public reaction caused some at Facebook to recoil at revealing more,
> said the current and former employees. Since the 2016 election, Facebook has
> paid unusual attention to the reputations of Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms.
> Sandberg, conducting polls to track how they are viewed by the public, said
> Tavis McGinn, who was recruited to the company last April and headed the
> executive reputation efforts through September 2017._

And how is it that Sandberg successfully intimidated the NYT to change their
story, and then less than 24 hours later, the same NYT reporters publish an a
followup that centers completely on the disgruntled executive (CSO Stamos) and
is even more explicit about Sandberg and Stamos fighting over Russian
interference -- including implying a direct cause and effect between their
deteriorating relationship and Stamos's punishment?

> _By October, the relationship between Mr. Stamos and Ms. Sandberg had
> deteriorated over how to handle Russian interference on Facebook and how
> best to reorganize Facebook’s security team before the midterm elections,
> according to more than half a dozen people who work or formerly worked at
> the company. Mr. Stamos proposed that instead of reporting to Facebook’s
> general counsel, Colin Stretch, he report directly to Facebook’s higher-
> ups._

> _Instead, executives released Mr. Stamos from much of his day-to-day
> responsibility, employees said._

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/technology/alex-stamos-
fa...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/technology/alex-stamos-facebook-
security.html)

~~~
mannykannot
It is rather interesting how you use the techniques of the conspiracy theorist
to deny that anything is going on - the techniques, specifically, of asking a
bunch of questions that depend heavily on motives (and with the tacit
implication that the answers all fall the way that works for you), and of
replying to objections with more questions that do not directly address those
objections.

It is indeed possible that this statement is a falsehood: "Perlroth, however,
confirmed that the change occurred after Facebook’s public relations team
reached out to the New York Times–some time after the story was published",
but I am disinclined to believe it is simply on the basis of questionable
questions about motives, when the facts behind those questions could equally
be explained by both parties trying to back off, in their own ways, from their
initial mistakes.

And the issue of whether it was Sandberg, specifically, who initiated the
initial retraction request, is a red herring.

~~~
danso
I'm the one who provides proof and rationale, but that's all just "techniques
of the conspiracy theorist"? Whereas you are accepting at face value a blog
post that itself produces no proof, other than to point out that Facebook PR
contacted NYT and NYT made an edit to their story?

OK, I'll make my argument by assuming that I'm wrong and you are right:

\- NYT defers to FB and Sandberg

\- Yesterday, an NYT article was edited and a phrase particularly damning and
specific to Sandberg was removed without notice.

\- It's reasonable to assume Sandberg pressured NYT to make that change.

OK, I propose these facts:

This change was made at 9:21PM EST on Monday, 2+ hours after the story
originally published at 7PM:

[http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1652560/1652801/https%3A/www.nytim...](http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1652560/1652801/https%3A/www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-
alex-stamos.html)

At 8:33PM Tuesday, the two reporters for the first story published this story:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/technology/alex-stamos-
fa...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/technology/alex-stamos-facebook-
security.html)

[http://newsdiffs.org/article-
history/https%3A/www.nytimes.co...](http://newsdiffs.org/article-
history/https%3A/www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/technology/alex-stamos-facebook-
security.html)

The End for Facebook’s Security Evangelist
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/technology/alex-stamos-
fa...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/technology/alex-stamos-facebook-
security.html)

I bring up the time stamps to argue that this story would've had to been
partially reported and on deck for it to have been ready to publish less than
24 hours later. It's reasonable to assume they had some fo this reporting done
at the time Sandberg is alleged to have coerced them into changing their
story.

This follow up story is entirely focused on CSO Stamos, i.e. the Facebook exec
who was forced out of a job and is the exec that advocated the most against
Sandberg when it came to detecting Russian interference. The NYT reporters
published this story sympathetic to Stamos despite agreeing to soften their
coverage just 24-hours before to please Sandberg.

This follow story ends with a damning claim, that Stamos and Sandberg had a
"deteriorating" relationship specifically on the issue of "how to handle
Russian interference on Facebook and how to best reorganize Facebook's
security team before the midterm elections." Even worse, the story alleges
that when Stamos asked for a restructure to avoid reporting to general
counsel, Stamos's work and department was dissolved. To put these two events
(Sandberg disagreement, Stamos losing his job) in consecutive paragraphs
strongly implies that Sandberg fired Stamos because of the Russia thing.

Even worse, this story sources this claim to "more than half a dozen people
who work or formerly worked at the company."

\-----

Assuming those facts above, here's the argument from contradiction: the NYT
reporters are accused of erasing the following sentence regarding Sheryl
Sandberg:

> _Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating
> and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of
> other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief
> operating officer, according to the current and former employees, who asked
> not to be identified discussing internal matters_

The allegation is that the above sentence is damaging to Sandberg, and she
went out of her way to threaten/pressure the NYT to change/remove it.

But as the facts stand, the NYT has published a separate story that states
this:

> _By October, the relationship between Mr. Stamos and Ms. Sandberg had
> deteriorated over how to handle Russian interference on Facebook and how
> best to reorganize Facebook’s security team before the midterm elections,
> according to more than half a dozen people who work or formerly worked at
> the company. Mr. Stamos proposed that instead of reporting to Facebook’s
> general counsel, Colin Stretch, he report directly to Facebook’s higher-ups.
> Instead, executives released Mr. Stamos from much of his day-to-day
> responsibility, employees said._

\- The "consternation" sentence was so offensive to Sandberg that she used
influence to get NYT to revise/remove it from a story yesterday.

\- Today, those same editors published a story even more damning regarding
Sandberg and Stamos and Russian interference.

\- That this followup story was allowed to be published (and 4+ hours later,
has had no revisions), contradicts the assumption that NYT is subservient to
Sandberg/Facebook.

~~~
mannykannot
This is just the same set of motives claims as before, expanded in tedious
detail, and with some confusion about what are facts and what are speculation.
If, as TFA states, "Perlroth, however, confirmed that the change occurred
after Facebook’s public relations team reached out to the New York Times–some
time after the story was published", then it is all beside the point.

~~~
danso
> _Perlroth, however, confirmed that the change occurred after Facebook’s
> public relations team reached out to the New York Times_

OK, so your argument is basically "correlation is causation", i.e.

\- Facebook PR contacted Perlroth at some point

\- After talking to FB PR, Perlroth and colleagues edited their story.

\- Therefore, we assume the edit was made because of Facebook's wishes.

Note how the OP doesn't explain what this "edit" that Perlroth admits to and
confirms. She responds to him on Twitter [0] when he asks her about the story
being "wiped"; he characterizes her response as "downplay[ing] the change". Uh
OK, I guess that's a matter of opinion. But the OP fails to mention that the
edit/update in question involves changing a first-edition story from 300 words
to 1,300 words. Here's actual data:

[http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1652560/1652801/https%3A/www.nytim...](http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1652560/1652801/https%3A/www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-
alex-stamos.html)

But if your reasoning is "correlation is causation" and "no such thing as
coincidences", it's good to know where you stand, I don't think there's much
more need to quibble.

[0]
[https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/976157486188081152](https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/976157486188081152)

~~~
nkurz
Your logical argument makes sense to me, but I think your summary is a little
off in the details of mannykannot's argument. In particular, I don't think he
requires that Facebook PR had direct contact with the authors of the piece. I
would suggest this timeline instead:

1\. Perlroth et al publish a story in the NYT that arguably reflects poorly on
Sandberg.

2\. Facebook's PR firm contacts the NYT post-publication requesting that
changes be made to the story.

3\. Within a few hours the story is edited in a way that arguably is less
negative toward Sandberg.

Given just this information, is it fair to claim that 2 caused 3? You (with
your "conspiracy theory" level of attention to detail and logic) say "no";
mannykannot says "yes". While logically you would seem to be right, let's see
how strong we can make the argument that this series of events actually does
show causation. How about this:

1) Facebook is willing to pay an expensive PR firm to reach out to the NYT
with the goal of changing the coverage. At the least, I think we can say that
Facebook (and probably their expensive PR firm) believe that such edit
requests produce results. Do you think they are wasting their money? If so,
why should we trust an idealistic academic on this rather than a self-
interested profit-driven firm willing?

2) If the authors know that there is pushback from Facebook on the story, they
will edit the story differently than if there was no pushback. The only
question is how big the difference is. Maybe it only prevents them from adding
further negativity, or maybe it makes them choose slightly more defensible
word choices. They might eventually redirect their efforts in a different
piece, but do you really believe that knowledge of pushback will have truly
zero effect on their editorial choices? And we've established that it's a non-
zero influence, aren't we (like Churchill) just haggling about the price?

3) In addition to having journalistic ideals, the NYT is also a business who
needs to be concerned about their reputation as a trustworthy news source.
Facebook is one of very few companies influential enough to make or break the
NYT's reputation. Thus when Facebook reaches out to the business side of the
NYT suggesting that greater consideration be given to their side of the story,
it would be prudent for the NYT to do so, or at least to give Facebook the
impression that they are doing so. While this doesn't directly explain any
individual edit, it might explain a general trajectory whereby edits are
generally made in a direction favorable to Facebook. Do you deny that these
forces exist?

~~~
danso
Appreciate the discussion. I think the first point of contention is that,
speaking from experience (as a reporter), we have different assumptions about
the influence of these PR firms. There's a wide latitude of contact that
happens in which the PR firm provides info or clarification. Sometimes the PR
firm is the only way to get a formal statement, and this is exactly what
Nicole Perlroth asserts:

[https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/976159345195941888](https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/976159345195941888)

> _FB PR gave us a statement from Stamos after the first post in which he
> described the dynamic "as productive." We appended that to our story, while
> also laying out disagreements._

I'm assuming this was the graf that was added:

> _Mr. Stamos joined Facebook from Yahoo in June 2015. He and other Facebook
> executives, such as Ms. Sandberg, disagreed early on over how proactive the
> social network should be in policing its own platform, said the people
> briefed on the matter. In his statement, Mr. Stamos said his relationship
> with Ms. Sandberg was “productive.”_

The other reporter, Sheera Frenkel, adds the specifics that Facebook PR "made
no such request" about removing references to Sandberg:

[https://twitter.com/sheeraf/status/976238483122487296](https://twitter.com/sheeraf/status/976238483122487296)

\-----

So what's your rationale, given the complete absence of evidence, such as an
inside source -- to distrust the NYT reporters out of hand? Why do you think
the benefit of the doubt should be given to the reporter from Law&Crime, who
is only making allegations? He's more knowledgeable and trustworthy than the
actual reporters who investigated and published this story in the _first
place_?

Maybe it's not clear enough that the Stamos vs. Sandberg story was the result
of reporter effort; Stamos's departure (nevermind the reasons and the
controversies) was _not_ an official announcement. So I admit my bias that
it's hard to believe why we should suspect the NYT reporters of censoring
their own story when it's entirely their fault that the story even exists?

~~~
nkurz
_So what 's your rationale [...] to distrust the NYT reporters out of hand?_

As you can guess from my phrasing, I don't absolutely distrust them, and
merely suggest that their statements should be assessed with an awareness of
their self-interest. I presume that the authors believe that they did not make
edits in response to threats from Facebook, although I'd expect them to say
the same even if they did feel pressured. But in the same way that the
"anthropic principle" is outside formal logic but sometimes produces
interesting insights, I think it's worth considering what conclusions can be
drawn from the fact that these authors remain gainfully employed by the New
York Times.

 _it 's hard to believe why we should suspect the NYT reporters of censoring
their own story when it's entirely their fault that the story even exists?_

I agree, but censoring is not absolute, not everyone within the paper has the
same goals, and no individual has just a single goal. There are tensions
pulling the journalists in multiple directions, and Facebook's PR firm is one
of these tensions. Perhaps getting a story out with minor modifications
satisfies enough of the goals of the parties involved. Would you concede that
"zero impact" from corporate criticism is probably an unachievable ideal, and
that Facebook's pushback here might have had at least a tiny influence in the
way the story evolved (and will continue to evolve)?

More generally, I'm dubious that a for-profit press can ever please all
stakeholders. Are you familiar with this criticism of the NYT from a couple
years ago: "An obituary of The New York Times"
[[https://medium.com/@johannes.wahlstrom/an-obituary-of-the-
ne...](https://medium.com/@johannes.wahlstrom/an-obituary-of-the-new-york-
times-50f2cb0f8157)]. I thought it did a good job of pointing to some previous
examples of the imperfect wall between business and journalistic goals.

~~~
danso
Let me be the first to say that I would not argue that we should _a priori_
trust a journalist, NYT or wherever. When I ask for rationale in distrusting
NYT reporters out of hand, I mean, why should we distrust them moreso than the
_other_ journalist (the lawandcrime blogger)?

I'm not asking us to discern with extreme acuity the integrity and honesty of
these NYT journalists. I'm limiting it to the claims that have been made
against them, their responses, and the evidence available. Trying to draw
conclusions about their scope and length of gainful employment and what that
says about them is all an unnecessary tangent.

I absolutely agree that censorship (and racism, and hate, and everything not
binary) is not an absolute. And that journalists are influenced by many
biases, overt and hidden. In fact, the NYT journalists in question could be
compromised if they are avid FB users and have many fond memories.

But why is that the topic of debate? Law&crime has made a specific assertion
about how FB interacted with NYT reporters about a specific situation -- this
negative FB story. I don't have to argue about whether FB's pushback had "zero
impact" because I don't have to agree or disagree. Those small factors may
push this question one way or another.

But before considering those minute details, and tackling the ongoing issue of
the trustworthiness of corporate media and the presence of harmful incentives,
we have to agree on some easily observable facts, regarding a well-defined
question.

In other words, I don't think I have a lot to disagree with you. But if I have
to convince you about the unified theory of journalism and business, just in
arguing about whether the OP is full of shit, I don't think I can win that :)

~~~
nkurz
_But if I have to convince you about the unified theory of journalism and
business, just in arguing about whether the OP is full of shit, I don 't think
I can win that_

Depends on which OP you mean. I don't think mannykannot made a strong argument
here, but I was surprised by this. I seem to recall upvoting him on numerous
previous occasions for comments I liked, and that I thought were logically
sound. I was trying to figure out whether there was stronger argument hiding
underneath his (at least superficially) logically flawed one.

If by OP you mean the author of the blog post on Law and Crime, yeah, I agree
it seemed irredeemably awful. I'm willing to believe that it's a low quality
hit piece for clicks and not worth considering more closely. Are they thought
to be a brand that normally has higher standards? My expectations for
mannykannot (a name I recognize on HN) are significantly higher than for an
unfamiliar linked blog.

 _But why is that the topic of debate?_

The actual debate of interest for me is why you and mannykannot seem to
disagree so completely here, and why it was so difficult for the two of you to
even make sense of each others' arguments. From the outside, it looked like
both of you were arguing in good faith, but getting nowhere. Logically, I'm
mostly with you, but while I find your argument compelling, others apparently
do not. I'm interested in understanding the underlying cause of this.

~~~
danso
Sorry, by OP I meant the Law&Crime article. As much as I strongly disagreed
with mannykannot, disagreement != "full of shit" (at least on HN, for me).

The disagreement between me and mannykannot has to do with our fundamental
assumptions. He believes that the OP's allegation -- that Facebook PR
contacted the NYT, and the NYT afterwards edited its story -- is a sound
premise. My argument (among many) is that the OP has provided no evidence for
assuming that premise.

Not only did the NYT reporter explain what FBPR told her (they gave her an
official statement to be associated with Stamos), they've denied that FBPR
pressured them to do anything else. FB PR certainly hasn't said anything. I
know that this is what we should _expect_ to be the case if NYT and FB were in
cahoots, but in these situations, the reporter making such an allegation has
done the investigative reporting to find sources who can make the claim (NYT's
story on Facebook is very dependent on anonymous sources).

So from my perspective, there is no reason to think that FB PR visit and NYT
story update/edit have a causal relationship. I think mannykannot think I doth
protest too much (which is fair!) and that my rationalizations and evidence is
no more valid than what a conspiracy theorist would be doing.

That's fine, HN isn't about winning debates :)

~~~
mannykannot
I see this discussion has been around the block a few times while I have been
away, and it set off in the wrong direction in claiming that I am mistaking
correlation for causation. While the phrase "Perlroth, however, confirmed that
the change occurred after Facebook’s public relations team reached out to the
New York Times–some time after the story was published" is formally only
stating a correlation, this style of usage is extremely commonly used to state
a causal relationship, and it seems clear from the context that this was the
intended reading in this case.

While correlation alone does not automatically imply causation, causes result
in correlation. I have noticed an uptick recently of invalid uses of the
'correlation is not causation' statement, as if it were a conclusive rebuttal,
in situations where the correlation was, in fact, a consequence of the cause,
and this seems to be the case here.

The rest of your argument rests on a number of assumptions about which
specific people initiated actions, their motives, and that these specific
people were each adopting for themselves a single, unchanging, rational and
consistent policy -- so much so that the phrase quoted above must have been a
fabrication. To me, that seems to require that a lot of the uncertain issues
all line up in a particular direction (to be correlated, if you will), and the
episode is more parsimoniously explained by the NYT (perhaps in the persons of
a junior editor and PR staffer) initially making a decision that the larger
organization realized was a mistake, but which then compounded the problem by
attempting to gloss over the initial response. The good news, as your
references indicate, is that the NYT's action seems to have been a temporary
aberration.

~~~
danso
Yeah, we just have different premises and assumptions. You and I both accept
the following statement made by the article:

> _" Perlroth, however, confirmed that the change occurred after Facebook’s
> public relations team reached out to the New York Times–some time after the
> story was published"_

You think it's clear that the author is intending to state a casual
relationship. Great. So my point is that the author is obliged to prove how he
knows this is a causal relationship.

You can re-read his post all the way up and down, he provides no evidence.
Meanwhile, Perlroth has explained [0] why she was in contact with FB's PR
people -- because they wanted to give her Stamos's formal statement. This
statement is quoted in Perlroth's story.

So we're still back at square one, starting with the author's hypothesis that
FB's contact with NYT is related to the NYT's edit/update of their article.
You're free to assume without evidence that it is more than a correlation,
just as I'm free to take up skepticism. In a court case, if the NYT thought
it'd be a good idea to sue for defamation, I really wonder what the L&C author
would use as evidence. NYT, at least, will have the messages/emails between
its reporters and FB.

[0]
[https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/976159345195941888](https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/976159345195941888)

------
non_sequitur
I don't even like Facebook, but really, is this newsworthy now? I know the
media sees it as a chance to dogpile the company that has taken them to the
cleaners, but there's a reason people don't trust or like the media anymore
and "articles" like these are a big reason why.

~~~
danso
Cambridge Analytica has been the subject of two very high profile
investigations in the UK this past week, which caused Facebook to take
punitive action against the firm, even though the firm and its misuse of FB
data was written about several years ago. One of the revelations this week is
that Facebook's CSO had been critical of FB's lack of response to CA and is
now leaving the company:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-
alex-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-alex-
stamos.html)

Sometimes newsworthy things become newsworthy after the actual time of events.
Harvey Weinstein's sexual abuse had been hinted at for years but only this
past year did the amount of reporting and attention cause him to face real
legal and business problems. Same with Bill Cosby.

------
Analemma_
For everyone who cheered when Thiel took down Gawker, this is what you've
wrought. Look up the definition of "chilling effect" sometime: _even if_
Gawker's behavior wasn't defensible, now that newspapers know Facebook has a
board member willing to go to war with news organizations that don't get in
line, they have to self-censor to stay alive.

~~~
twblalock
The coverage of Facebook has been quite negative, including from the NYT. So
I'm not sure what self-censorship you're referring to.

