Verizon Launches Tech News Blog... That Bans Any Articles About Net Neutrality Or Government Surveillance
from the well-that's-just-great dept
Patrick O'Neill, over at The Daily Dot, has a scoop about Verizon getting directly into our game: tech blogging. It's launched a brand new tech news website, called SugarString, which apparently is supposed to compete with other tech news sites. Now, I know that some are immediately skeptical just based on the fact that Verizon is launching a news site -- but I don't find that alone particularly troubling. In fact, I think many companies should be producing good, relevant content, because good content is good advertising. Hell, a decade ago, I was very involved with a great news site that Nokia put together called TheFeature, which involved a really spectacular group of writers covering news and commentary about the coming mobile world (sadly, TheFeature was basically wiped off the internet, though the archives can still be found). But, at least there, we had free reign to write about anything we thought was interesting at all. There was no pressure or influence from Nokia at all -- at least none that I ever felt. And, honestly, I think more companies should be engaging with people with good content.But, of course, this is Verizon, so its good intent is undermined by something silly. And, in this case, the something silly is that anyone writing for SugarString has to agree not to write about net neutrality or government surveillance, two of the biggest, most important tech topics these days. From our standpoint, I guess that takes away "competition" (though, amusingly, it does appear like at least one story on the site is a warmed over version of something that we wrote a week ago, but made more clickbaity with a "list") on two of the main stories we cover, but it really does raise questions about why anyone would ever trust the site in the first place, when, from the very outset, Verizon has made it clear that its editorial control will be focused on staying away from any stories that Verizon doesn't like.
O'Neill found out about the site, and the restrictions, when he was recruited from The Daily Dot to see if he wanted to write for the site, via its editor Cole Stryker. Stryker seems like an odd choice as the editor, as the author of an entire book about anonymity and privacy online, who we interviewed a few years ago. You'd think that among his areas of focus would be things like government surveillance. And, amusingly, many of the stories on the site do dance around that topic, without getting anywhere near how Verizon might be involved:
There's plenty of talk lately about the importance of trust in journalism today (even if it's tricky to measure). I think it's absolutely possible for a big company to create great editorial content that builds up trust (we did with TheFeature those many years ago). But part of that is not denying reality or putting stupid, trust-destroying restrictions on the effort. Verizon appears to have failed that simple test, and with that, it takes away a big part of the trust that any such site would need.Virtually every story currently on the front page of SugarString—articles about GPS being used by law enforcement, anonymity hardware enabling digital activists, and artists on the Deep Web—would typically include information on American surveillance of the Internet and net neutrality to give the reader the context to make sure she’s fully informed.
But none of articles do that. At best, they dance around the issue and talk about how other countries aside from the U.S. conduct surveillance. That self-censorship puts blinders on the reader, never giving her all the information she should have—information that, not coincidentally, tends to make Verizon and other powerful interests look very, very bad.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cole stryker, journalism, net neutrality, sponsored journalism, surveillance, tech bloc, trust
Companies: verizon
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Unless of course the articles were against such things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And it all started because Dark Helmet allegedly slept with Barbara Streisand to get his gig at Techdirt.
>:]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Antitrust regulations?
In this case, Verizon is clearly trying to corner the market on satire. How is a satirist supposed to exaggerate that kind of move? "Next thing you know, they'll ..." blank. Nothing remotely realistic to put in there. And then Verizon puts in something totally ridiculous, makes it a reality and you just have to run after them.
They are moving the goalposts of satire right through everybody's front yard and house walls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Antitrust regulations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2839816/secretive-unblockable-verizon-perma-cookies-kick-up-p rivacy-concerns.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The remedy: don't use the cell network to browser unless you are going through a VPN or you are using HTTPS. There is no other solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Is Verizon trustworthy when it comes to SSL certificates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So for the really paranoid test the site you want to stay secret: Qualys SSL Test
Though I agree, Verizon wouldn't do this but I wouldn't put it past the legal system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baffling
I agree, and I find it frankly baffling that so many companies can't seem to pull it off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call it what it is
But we're not talking about journalism here. This is propaganda, bought and paid for by Verizon. The people employed aren't journalists, they're shills and stenographers, obediently writing whatever PR, bullshit and lies their corporate masters command.
Calling this "journalism" is like calling a toilet stain "art".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Call it what it is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think I read something like that once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This "SugarString" blog will be known as a Verizon shill, just as CNET will always be known as a CBS front, after that CES debacle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least they haven't gone the full route with the desktop browser yet, but I wouldn't put it past them to try at a later date.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it's the later, he's doing a good job. He basically went out of his way to ensure that the impartiality of the site would be reported elsewhere and that credibility would be harmed right out of the gate. If this is his intention, I assume he will leave the post shortly.
If he intends to keep his job and try to get a good news site going, I expect that very shortly there will be a story about spying or neutrality front-and-center on the site. It will put the news to rest, then they can return to banning those topics once this episode has fallen into the memory hole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tailor Made!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tailor Made!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interrelated
Then again, maybe that's not an unintended consequence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not that it isn't entirely useless in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Invasion of corporate news
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/937b06c2-3ebd-11e4-adef-00144feabdc0.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A moderator of the default /r/technology subreddit is revealed to be suppressing government surveillance and network neutrality stories, and is removed.
Ensuing drama is fanned and in the aftermath new technology subreddits /r/tech and /r/futurology are promoted suppressing 'political' stories.
By swinging the political term around with negative connotation, fluffy technology stories get retained while skirting anything about government surveillance or network neutrality.
With the new Verizon site thrown in, the theory that there is some intent behind how this has shaken out gains a bit of traction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SugarString is missing a tag line
How I learned to stop worrying and love the surveillance state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“I think I read something like that once.