Nonprofit Takes Aim At Fox News By Demystifying Ad Exchanges
from the delusion-express dept
Usually when people start whining about the propaganda dumpster fire that is Fox News, several things predictably happen. First, somebody with no idea how any of this works will yell out something about how the FCC should ban Fox from doing this (which is unconstitutional), or restore the mythologized Fairness Doctrine (which wouldn’t have applied to cable TV anyway).
That will generally be followed by a lot of First Amendment experts getting healthy Twitter engagement for justly making fun of those people in a variety of new and creative ways.
It’s at that point the conversation usually sputters. Rarely in this process does anybody provide any meaningful, creative solutions about what to actually do about Fox News. When I speak to media scholars and experts I’m routinely amazed by how few creative solutions to the Fox News problem there actually are floating about. It’s an entire, elaborate discourse primarily focused on what’s not possible.
Still, every so often you do see people pop up that are actually trying to do… something. Enter a nonprofit named CheckMyAds, which unveiled a new campaign taking aim at Fox News online ad revenues by pressuring the ad exchanges that routinely fund right wing extremism, COVID denialism, and other harmful gibberish:
“We’re kicking off by focusing on many of the same exchanges we previously contacted over their ties to various insurrectionists,” Claire Atkin, one of the groups’ co-founders, told Gizmodo. She noted that while some of the exchanges—Yahoo is among the group’s targets—cut off ad-dollar access to digital properties from Steve Bannon, they remain tethered to Fox News’s site.
The adtech sector is an intentionally convoluted hellscape of algorithmic confusion, intentionally over-complicated to pre-empt regulation, oversight, or even basic levels of accountability and transparency. There’s just an absolute universe of influencer shit-merchants that have exploited this to rake in millions while spewing conspiratorial gibberish, including Fox.
There’s also a long list of advertisers who rely on this confusion to abdicate their ethical responsibility in terms of their money winding up in the pockets of bottom-dwelling grifters and bigots. The murkiness makes it easier to pretend it’s not happening, and it’s this accountability gap the group hopes to target:
Gizmodo’s Shoshana Wodinsky had a good piece explaining how this maze of accountability dodgeball works in a bit more detail.
Advertising bans haven’t done much to thwart the popularity of white supremacist allies like Tucker Carlson, in part because Fox News is primarily financed by cable subscriber fees it obtains whether users watch the channel or not. Efforts to target this systemic dysfunction have also seen limited results so far.
That’s because there’s no single, easy fix for Fox News. It likely requires a rethink of cable retrans fees, a huge dose of accountability and transparency for adtech markets, education standards that prioritize critical thinking in media consumption (see: Finland), a massive boost in creative funding for real journalism, and (according to media scholars like Victor Pickard) a big boost in public media funding.
This is all difficult to implement in a country that prioritizes wealth accumulation above all else, struggles to fund education or journalism, has long cultivated a nasty strain of anti-intellectualism, and has growing distrust in a Congress that’s too corrupt to function on even the most basic of issues.
Still, given the absolute parade of creative thought and financing we’ve thrown at shitty NFT art alone, you have to think the wealthiest country in the history of the planet could do a hell of a better job finding smart, creative ways to clean up blatant propaganda, even if the deck is likely stacked in bullshit’s favor.
Filed Under: ads, authoritarian, boycott, cable news, cable tv, conspiracy theories, disinformation, fairness doctrine, propaganda, retrans fees
Companies: checkmyads, fox news
Comments on “Nonprofit Takes Aim At Fox News By Demystifying Ad Exchanges”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Out Of Their League
Leftists routinely seek to shut down the competing message. This is because they can’t compete on the message itself. Fox News programs are willing to invite the top liberal speakers onto their programs to debate, but leftists routinely refuse. Top conservative speakers usually only make it onto a leftist news debate once in their careers, because after one strong performance they get blacklisted.
Fix that credibility problem with news organizations, and you won’t have to worry about sabotaging the finances of the competition.
ONe way to fix the mess of corporations ruling or at least skewing politics and public policy with dark money and extremist propaganda is to institute a death penalty for corporations. Corporate personhood is in fact above human personhood. You can’t jail a corporation no matter how evil and corrupt their behavior is yet people go to jail for their actions every day. Making it so corporations are on the hook for their false propaganda when presented with evidence if they continue to peddle it, with the ultimate punishment being the literal seizure of it ownership and all shares should bring back the honesty they so clearly don’t care about because in the US it’s not monetarily dangerous to be dishonest as a corporation.
Re: Re:
Perhaps congress could pass a law to this effect. They could create a Ministry Of Truth to judge which organizations aren’t being dishonest.
Re:
I see your point but who will be judging this? There is a real and big risk of going full “Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda”. Just think a Trump govt being in charge of such task. Other than that, holding the management board directly accountable for corporate corruption should surely be on the table. It’s somewhat true that some companies are too big to fail but if their management is threatened with heavy fines and prison time for wrongs done by the company then we’ll see improvements. There were 2 residue dams rupture in Brazil (Mariana and Brumadinho) and there was virtually no punishment at all for the responsible companies and their management after Mariana (the 1st one). Then we had the second (Brumadinho) and nobody was effectively punished. The 3rd is a matter of time.
Re: Re:
There were 2 residue dams rupture in Brazil (Mariana and Brumadinho) and there was virtually no punishment at all for the responsible companies and their management after Mariana (the 1st one). Then we had the second (Brumadinho) and nobody was effectively punished. The 3rd is a matter of time.
Brazilian population control. 😧
Re: The problem with that
There are no major news channels that DON’T engage in propaganda and lies. I can’t watch MSNBC or Fox because I constantly want to reach through the screen and strangle them for what are either incredibly blatant lies, or ignorance so deep they’d have no business posting on a shitposting site, let alone running a news channel.
While few other channels are as bad about it as MSNBC and Fox, there aren’t any that don’t engage in propaganda and spin to push an agenda.
When I stopped paying for cable in 1996, it was to avoid giving any money to corporations such as Fox News (and Disney, but it’s hard to compare their respective evils).
It likely requires a rethink of cable retrans fees, a huge dose of accountability and transparency for adtech markets, education standards that prioritize critical thinking in media consumption (see: Finland)…
Explain Tero Pulkkinen, then. 😉
Re:
No teaching system has yet been designed for people who can’t discern the difference between reality and…wherever the hell he lives.
Re: Re:
I was just joking, but that’s still an excellent explanation. 😆
Re: Re:
Tero should be considered a rare failure of the Finnish system.
Why the sudden change from a poor country (albeit with some idiotically rich people) to China?
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” ― William F. Buckley
Re:
We liberals are NOT shocked that right-wingers have different views than us, we are shocked at the fact that their views are so insane, ignorant, vile, hate-filled and bigoted!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I know right! If only each and every one of them wasn’t so completely insane, ignorant, vile, hate-filled and bigoted! Every single one of them! If you are on the right political spectrum, that’s 100% you. No exceptions! Republican, conservative, right-winger all the same thing! Vile, vile and vile! A vile trifecta!
I’m so glad we liberals are totally not like that! Each one of us, completely sane, intelligent, honorable, loving and fighting for total equality everywhere!
Re: Re: Re:
Everything is on a spectrum and everyone varies in their degree of enthusiasm for the cause, but if you think liberals are currently displaying the same levels of ignorance, bigotry and hatred as conservatives then you haven’t been paying attention.
Re: Re:
You made a generalization, therefore, your argument is invalid because you’re judging an entire group of people when you’ve likely only personally encountered a small fraction of them and thus are making assumptions you can’t possibly empirically verify and which are also based on your own beliefs rather than objective data. Best thing to do is to not judge at all, lest you be judged in return. Look at individuals, not groups. Every single person is different.
Re: Re: Re:
Liar.
Re: Re: Re:
Unless I’m misreading who you’re replying to I find it telling that you made that comment to the person replying to the comment that generalized a bunch of people.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
No, you’re not misreading anything. That’s what Toom’s like.
Re: Re: Re:2
Obviously, it’s AC who has no clue who they’re replying to.
Re: Re: Re:3
So when somebody accidentally clicks the reply link below the wrong comment, it invariably makes what they say a lie? AC’s not the liar here, blockhead.
Re: Re: Re:4
You know your gaslighting doesn’t work when the comment thread is still entirely visible, right?
Re: Re: Re:5
Stop talking to yourself in the guise of giving unsolicited advice to others.
Re: Re: Re:6
Damn, mic drop!
Re: Re: Re:3
Obviously, Toom lacks reading comprehension because it’s obvious who AC was responding to from their response.
Re: Re: Re:4
Damn, another mic drop!
Re: Re: Re:4
In the real world: AC’s commens says they hallucinated they were responding to me, yet that is physically impossible as at the time of their reply there were zero comments by me in the entire thread to whicn to reply, proving the sockpuppeting brain-dead/right-wing AC to continue to be the projecting pathological liar they have always been without single exception.
Nor were they, as That One Guy observed, responding to the correct comment when they copypasted their “generalizing” lie, as it was Right-wing/Braind-dead Sockpuppet#1 that posted the idiotic quote from Buckley who was the only one here generalizing, yet right-wing/Brain-dead sockpuppet#2 replied imstead to Valis, whose comment consisted only of factual observation – so they couldn’t have possibly been responding to the correct post there, either.
Re: Re: Re:5
That’s an actual mic drop right there.
Re: Re: Re:6
Walls of text don’t qualify for mic drop status, but do try again on a one-liner, Toom.
Re: Re: Re:5
You’re not very good at reading the times things were posted, are you? As for sockpuppets, only someone that employs such tools would make that accusation without sufficient evidence.
Re: Re: Re:6
The comment brain-dead bot laterclaims responds to me in his reply to That One Guy:
Jun 14 9:52 am
My first comment in the thread:
Jun 14 12:31pm
Who shall we believe? AC, or our own eyes and the laws of causality?
As with every single other accusation, they have ever made, it looks like “Not good at reading times” is proven to be 100% projection as well.
Amd yes, it is stupid of the AC to accuse me of using his sockpuppetry tactic with zero evidence.
Re: Re: Re:7
And yes, it is stupid of me to accuse the AC of using my sockpuppetry tactic with zero evidence.
FTFY. YW.
Re: Re: Re:7
Weirdly, neither time is searchable, but only one post is hidden in the entire comments. So you’re clearly lying about what was said when, putting the lie to other claims you’ve made. As for not using sockpuppets, we’ll believe that when you stop with the Freudian slips regarding them.
Re: Re: Re:8
Did you already forget how badly lying about the existence of posts went for you the last time you tried it?
Reminder: either the shitwit’s comment nor mine are hidden.
Re: Re: Re:9
neither*
Re: Re: Re:9
First, I’ve never lied about the existence of posts, putting the lie to your claim of sockpuppetry, something you clearly engage in yourself given how often you make that accusation with zero evidence. Second, I searched both times, neither can be found more than the one time they appear in your comment. Third, there are currently three comments on this page that have been flagged and hidden, and it was definitely at least one posted around the time you said the last occasion I commented, so not only are you being hypocritical when you accuse others of lying, this makes it likely that you’re being hypocritical when you accuse others of sockpuppetry. Care to try again, liar?
Re: Re: Re:10
That dishonest comment quoted above is still not hidden, shit-for-brains liar.
Re: Re: Re:11
And why is it if I’m supposedly the liar, that every one of my claims has provided or plain-view evidence, while you have never once had anytning at all backing any of your own claims, hmmm?
Re: Re: Re:12
You can hide behind “anonymous Coward” status but can’t hide your M.O.
Re: Re: Re:13
That link doesn’t show what you’re pretending it does, but relying on others’ relatively short attention spans is a tactic I’ll keep in mind for detectingyour sock-puppetry in the future.
Re: Re: Re:14
Care to explain how both you and “AC” both just happen to delusionally lie about the same derangedely-obsessed-about-falsely-accusing subject in a sub-5-minute span, on a thread that hadn’t seen any activity for days?
Re: Re: Re:11
And it still doesn’t have either of the times you quoted on it, braind-dead liar.
Re: Re: Re:12
Who do you trust, The AC who has never once made an evidence-backed claim or the evidence?
Re: Re:
They say the same things about you.
Re:
Self-serving, rank projection and misrepresentation like that above quote, is a good example of precisely why William F Buckley Jr. is (outside of avowedly “conservative” circles) remembered today merely as a former, high-profile “conservative” American “commentator”, rather than as a great and insightful American thinker deserving of general consideration by a broader public.
Re: Re:
So what you’re saying is, the people who don’t want there to be other views get butthurt about being called out on it?
Re: Re: Re:
This is a stupid strawman. You can have all the different views you want, but don’t expect not to get called on them if enacting those views results in the victimization, suffering and death of others.
Re: Re: Re:2
To be fair, the AC you responded to may also have become confused by the comment threading. At least, that’s what I got from going back to the earliest two comments in this thread.
Re: Re: Re:3
At least Blue/Bpbmail remembered to change his TOR nodes when sockpuppeting this time, unlike previous times. Doesn’t make him any less obvious at it, though.
Re:
“Conservatives claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” ― William F. Buckley Corrected
Re: Re:
They’re not shocked all that shocked,actually. But they are, most definitely, offended.
Re: Re: Re:
No, they are most definitely shocked that others have sufficient intelligence to hold any point of view at all, never mind a different one.
Re: Ah, the great and brilliant biggot, WFB
A minuscule heart that never did pump emotion, or empathy. Sitting on high letting all the poor people listen to his pontifications about why they are poor and how much he has never cared.
He has never heard a view that wasn’t his own and agreed with it. I would not be surprised if he disagreed with an early position because he no longer liked that sweater. I mean really, who decided that color would go with anything.
The main problem here is that media companies are in the hands of a few super rich assholes. I’ve seen some ideas to tackle this issue like forcing media companies to be owned by a management board with broad participation from organized civil entities (like ACLU for instance) and individuals as well but this too has its own problems. And even if people suddenly agree that this would be the best alternative good luck getting it past the moronic bipartisan system in the US or actually anywhere in the world because the moment this hegemony is threatened the amount of lobbying and propaganda against it will be more than overwhelming.
Re:
It’s not so much the bipartisan system to blame, but the fact you’d have to repeal most of the USA’s human rights laws to do it successfully. People tend to resist that sort of thing, after all.
Re: You are talking about the wrong problem
The Adtech business is the driving force behind getting millions from the ad business by sliding Johnson and Johnson ads for their baby products on hate sites that push the very conspiracy/racist theories that leads to Boston and other mass killings.
This has little to do with “media companies” but apparently that is the drum you have and you’re going to beat on it until the cows either come home or suffer hearing problems.
“you have to think the wealthiest country in the history of the planet could do a hell of a better job finding smart, creative ways to clean up blatant propaganda”
1 million dead to covid, still not fully vaxxed.
Untold numbers of dead children, best idea… stronger door.
Couple hundred in Daley Plaza waiting for JFK to come out of hiding & introduce trumps running mate JFK Jr.
Money doesn’t make people smart, it makes them want more money & the easiest path to money is selling your schtick to the rubes who will bury you in money to make sure that other guy doesn’t win even if it means cutting your own throat.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
sex in luzern
Find fine hot ladies for sex contacts in EU at sex in luzern
Since not much is going well
I might as well share some info. CheckMyAds has been diligently asking large corps, and other large ad buyers if their ads running on hate/disinformation/conspiracy theory sites fits their corporate public image. Oddly enough, few decide to stay.
Next in their list was adtech itself. Now, the tech part. The amazing technology is string searches.
Yep. Oh, they put a pretty dashboard in front of it but any reasonable Linux sysadmin could knock out a text version of it in an afternoon.
They publish TOS for the adtech, then link how their own ads.txt (even higher tech) shows they are violating their own alleged rules. So, while cutting off the head seems to work, they helped sink Brietbart’s ad income 90+% they are expanding on the basic efforts. Calling out adtech biz for supporting Steve Bannon (the weasel is slippery).
Now cutting off the oxygen and blood supply (good old cash) seems to be making dents. But, it is slow going, as quite the number of people in the very lucrative adtech biz have no interest in cutting off cash to their friends in the hate business.
fickle bunch
You ignore their ratings? More people watch fox than CNN and MSNBC combined.
I guess you lost your remote?
Now you’ve gone extremest!
Fox has its own service and runs what it wants on that service.
Just like all the other moderation options you support—private company private choice.
If you don’t like it go somewhere else!
Re:
Which have fuck all todo with its primary financing.
Which has fuck all todo with their blatant hypocrisy and lies.
Which has fuck all todo with pointing out that their blatant hypocrisy and lies actually harms society.
Which has fuck all todo with anyone’s right to criticize them.
Or, you know, exercise your right to ask companies that has ads on Fox if they want to be associated with the hypocrisy and lies. Funnily enough, even ad companies have the right to decide where they want their ads to run.
Re: Re:
Nothing, I replied to the statement:
whether users watch the channel or not. Which suggests that they are not self sufficient.
Nothing. If you don’t like it change the channel!
1st amendment protections are more important than your thoughts alone.
Nothing.
Interesting… good luck finding change. Advertising revolves around money and Fox News is far and away the highest number of prime time eyes you can get on cable.
You may not like it, but advertising is there to make money. If you want to make money you go where the eyes are to see it.
If you look back at 2015/2016 and 2017/2018 you’ll see any attempt at politics in advertising, be it social messages or pulling adverts, absolutely failed. Public companies need to earn money. The more eyes you reach, …!
So I ask, you are a billion+ value company. More eyes, or political values. Choose the latter and you won’t be part of that company for long.
Left or right, the vast majority don’t make choice based on message, but rather product quality.
And while this can temporarily stop the flow, News Corp, its parent shell corp, has many, many wings in many, many countries.
You’d also have to kill off HarperCollins, Zondervan, News Corp Australia and its companies, Sky News UK, The Sun, and so on…
Oh, and to find a way to ensure Murdoch and his fucking bloodline to stop doing this bullshit, preferably forever.