Beware the Billionaires: an Ode to Journalists & the Public
Earlier this year, CBS News released an article discussing how Meta is following in X’s footsteps of replacing the formal fact-checking process with community-based notes. Where did community notes even come from? What was their purpose? In January 2021, X, formerly known as Twitter, launched Birdwatch — the first step towards community-verified information. Birdwatch was an addition to formal fact-checking, not a replacement. However, when Elon Musk bought X in October 2022, later that year in November, Birdwatch became Community Notes— a mechanism that allows other users to informally correct information without citation.
Since then, X has deprioritized the fact-checking process and has encouraged the persistent usage of their community notes. According to the official X page, allowing community members to verify information aims to facilitate discussions that are “open-source and transparent” in hopes of spreading “diverse perspectives” across its platform. However, implementing a community-based fact-checking system could contribute to the rapid spread of disinformation and misinformation on the Internet.
Yale Insights argues that social media rewards the spread of misinformation because of the social currency of likes, reshares, and community. Gizem Ceylan, one of Yale’s postdoctoral scholars and researchers, notes that “by constantly reinforcing sharing — any sharing — with likes and comments, platforms have created habitual users who are largely unconcerned with the content they post. And these habitual users, the research shows, spread a disproportionate share of misinformation.”
Additionally, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) released a study that asserted that misinformation is not an issue of public “laziness,” but rather an algorithmically enforced, structural one. PNAS notes that improving security around how facts are shown online and straying away from misleading headlines could improve how we consume our information. It all goes back to teaching and reinforcing digital literacy and online safety.
Fact-checking and credible, verifiable information are important for creating a knowledgeable population, regardless of demographic category. Such a system is entirely reliant on ensuring that the information people are consuming accurately represents the reality they’re living in. Instead, social media is shifting away from having accessible sources from licensed researchers and experts, and that’s a shame.
No one can buy your agency, but they can buy your words. Journalists have adapted to the times by incorporating more digital media into their reporting style. Journalists are competing with various fast-acting algorithms that reward the spread of false information instead of making sure that their audience gets the right information at the right time in the right way.
A journalist’s agency is the most valuable tool they can rely on to drive their reporting. But when an organization starts demanding ownership over that, it commodifies their expression. Yet, how can you critique the upper elites when you’ve been bought by them?
In October 2024 during the early stages of the presidential election, The Washington Post abstained from endorsing a candidate. A statement from Will Lewis, the CEO of the Washington Post, revealed this decision was made to support “our readers’ ability to make up their own minds.” Additionally, Lewis disclosed that this decision is reflective of being “consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.”
According to CNBC, it was found out from two editorial staff writers at the Washington Post, that there had been a drafted endorsement for Former Vice President Kamala Harris over current President Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election. Ultimately, The Washington Post decided not to publish it.
Let it be known that Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post, and many believe that the billionaire influenced this decision.
Lewis’ statement illustrates the foundational principles of journalism ethics: objectivity and fair reporting. Traditionally, news organizations have remained non-partisan in elections to ensure that equal time is dedicated to reporting for both sides.
That said, the issue is less about partisan coverage and more about billionaires using their money to suppress journalists and the ability to have verifiable information. More often than not, independent journalists are afforded more self-jurisdiction and liberties than journalists who are working for a major publication. However, all journalists have a responsibility to their community to adhere to the public’s best interests. If an organization is bought out by a multi-billionaire capitalist, the ability of its journalists to freely report and critique is compromised.
In a similar fashion to X, Mark Zuckerberg, owner of Meta (formerly known as Facebook), rescinded his commitment to equipping Meta users with the correct information by getting rid of his team of professional independent fact-checkers. In early January, Zuckerberg released a video on Facebook detailing why this decision was being made, claiming by “simplifying policies” this new system was a “return to free expression” that focuses on “reducing mistakes.”
According to Zuckerberg, “We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth. But the fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created, especially in the U.S.” How should the public feel when it’s revealed that one of the biggest social media and technology tycoons blatantly refuses to protect its users from misinformation?
President Trump’s inauguration showed the public that modern politics is evolving into a technology-based or digital oligarchy. The presence of Elon Musk (CEO of Tesla and SpaceX), Mark Zuckerberg (CEO of Meta), Jeff Bezos (Owner of Amazon, The Washington Post, and Blue Origin), Shou Zi Chew (CEO of TikTok), Tim Cook (CEO of Apple), and Sundar Pichai (CEO of Google) at the inauguration signals this transition into a digitally dominant political arena. The days following the inauguration demonstrated that the intersections between technology and business influences on politics are becoming harder to refute. A crown of technological aristocracy is forming around President Trump’s head and it is crucial that journalists and average Americans alike are given the proper artillery to address it head-on.
The shadow of capitalism has always loomed over journalism, but truth perseveres despite that. Still, there’s something to be said about news agencies compromising their integrity due to ownership.
What happened with The Washington Post and Meta should not be taken lightly. Everyone, regardless of whether you’re a journalist or not, should be wary of where their information is coming from and who put it together. Similar to politics, there’s a hidden bureaucracy behind journalism that decides what stories get published, down to the language used and how it is framed. While organizations like the Associated Press and The New York Times are credible and longstanding institutions, we ought to continue fighting to hold them accountable.
The journalist’s plight is to avoid crumbling in the face of criticism and scrutiny, but rather to embrace it. Investigative journalism is essential for the protection of the people because it seeks to ensure accountability from institutions. News sites must contend with the constraints of political censorship and content restrictions from their billionaire owners, which inherently contradicts their moral obligation to the public to seek the truth and report it.
In this new era of media consumption, it has become imperative that people remain critical of their news sources. These intersections between social media, emerging technologies, and capitalist organizations are just the bells and whistles; the fact remains that journalism is a never-ending cycle of critique and investigation. No one should be excused from being held accountable because the public suffers when journalists aren’t allowed to do their job.