Cited by 135

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Could digital platforms capture the media through infrastructure?

Nechushtai, Efrat·2018·Journalism

Abstract

This article examines the relationship between the news industry and digital platforms, most notably Facebook and Google, through a political economy framework. The theory of regulatory capture suggests that regulators are prone to become captured by the businesses they oversee, whether through financial incentives (such as money transfers and revolving doors) or cognitive/cultural influence (such as advocacy and shared values). The theory was further expanded to suggest that businesses also attempt to capture non-governmental institutions tasked with scrutinizing them, such as the media. This article suggests that Google and Facebook are rapidly expanding their potential capability to do so. Alongside the forms of capture described in the literature, the most crucial element in Google and Facebook’s relationships with news organizations is the fact that they have come to provide the majority of audience for online news and are significant sources of potential growth in viewership. In addition, they equip news organizations with tools for news production, provide them with data on the reach of stories, and offer tools for analytics and insight. All this potentially amounts to a new form of capture that can be called infrastructural capture: circumstances in which a scrutinizing body is incapable of operating sustainably without the physical or digital resources and services provided by the businesses it oversees and is therefore dependent on them. This new category of capture, rooted in the dynamics of contemporary digital news markets, could pose serious challenges to the ability of news organizations to scrutinize the corporations that direct most of the traffic to their sites. Aside from potentially affecting the content of news, another important effect of compromising infrastructural autonomy to non-journalistic third-party actors might be a weakening of the legal protections that journalism benefits from.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1464884917725163

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

  • The politics of ‘platforms’

    Gillespie, T. (2010) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444809342738 · Cited by 2,522 · cited 1×

    “This suggestion taps into the increasing attention in media scholarship to issues of infrastructure, platform, and distribution (Braun, 2015; Gillespie, 2010; Helmond, 2015; Lewis and Westlund, 2015).”
    Background
  • Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2015

    Newman, N., Levy, D. A. L., & Nielsen, R. K. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2619576 · Cited by 1,890 · cited 1×

    “Reports from 2011 to 2015 indicate that by now, roughly one-third of the traffic to news sites originates from queries on search engines (primarily Google), and roughly another third from social media (primarily Facebook; DeMers, 2015; Ingram, 2015; Newman, 2012; Olmstead et al., 2011).”
    Background

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. Ananny M, 2011, A new way to think about press freedom: networked journalism and a public right to hear in an age of newsware
  2. Bagley N, 2010, Texas Law Review, 89, 1
  3. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.10.006 · DOI
  4. 10.1177/1464884913513430 · DOI
  5. Bell E (2015) Google and Facebook are our frenemy. Beware. Columbia Journalism Review. Available at: http://www.cjr.org/analysis/google_facebook_frenemy.php (accessed 17 January 2017).
  6. Bell E (2016a) Facebook is eating the world. Columbia Journalism Review. Available at: http://www.cjr.org/analysis/facebook_and_media.php (accessed 17 January 2017).
  7. Bell E (2016b) Who owns the news consumer: Social media platforms or publishers? Columbia Journalism Review. Available at: http://www.cjr.org/tow_center/platforms_and_publishers_new_research_from_the_tow_center.php (accessed 28 January 2017).
  8. Bell E (2017) How Mark Zuckerberg could really fix journalism. Columbia Journalism Review. Available at: http://www.cjr.org/tow_center/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-fix-journalism.php (accessed 14 March 2017).
  9. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1990.tb02265.x · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02808.x · DOI
  11. 10.1257/aer.96.3.720 · DOI
  12. 10.1177/2056305115580483. · DOI
  13. 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00219.x · DOI
  14. 10.1080/17512786.2016.1208056. · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.08.002 · DOI
  16. Coronel S, 2009, Public Sentinel: News Media and Governance Reform, 111
  17. 10.1080/17512786.2012.683340 · DOI
  18. 10.1093/oxrep/grj013 · DOI
  19. Digital Content Next, 2017, Distributed Content Revenue Benchmark Report
  20. 10.3386/w9309. · DOI
  21. Foster R, 2012, News plurality in a digital world
  22. Gans HJ, 1979, Deciding What’s News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time
  23. Hallin DC, 1986, The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam
  24. 10.1515/9781400841417 · DOI
  25. 10.4159/9780674973572 · DOI
  26. 10.2307/3313062 · DOI
  27. 10.1177/2056305115603080. · DOI
  28. Herman ES, 1988, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media
  29. 10.1080/21670811.2013.808456 · DOI
  30. Hilton G, 1972, The American Economic Review, 62, 47
  31. 10.4159/9780674056527 · DOI
  32. 10.1017/CBO9781139565875.008 · DOI
  33. 10.1093/jleo/6.special_issue.167 · DOI
  34. 10.1080/21670811.2014.927986 · DOI
  35. McChesney RW, 2008, The Political Economy of Media: Enduring Issues, Emerging Dilemmas
  36. 10.1257/0895330042632690 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1177/0261018310376805 · DOI
  38. 10.1111/j.1475-679X.2006.00224.x · DOI
  39. 10.1017/CBO9781139565875.004 · DOI
  40. Olmstead K, 2011, Navigating news online: Where people go, how they get there and what lures them away
  41. 10.4159/9780674041660 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.1080/17512786.2014.894327 · DOI
  43. 10.1086/466865 · DOI
  44. Petrova M, 2008, Information and Public Choice: From Media Markets to Policymaking, 121
  45. Pew Research Center, 2016, News Use across Social Media Platforms 2016
  46. Poell T, 2014, Media Independence: Working with Freedom or Working for Free?, 182
  47. Prat A, 2012, Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Tenth World Congress, 135
  48. 10.1080/21670811.2016.1152903 · DOI
  49. Schiffrin A, 2010, Bad News: How America’s Business Press Missed the Story of the Century, 10
  50. 10.1111/soc4.12288 · DOI
  51. Schlosberg J, 2016, The mission of media in an age of monopoly
  52. 10.2307/j.ctv62hfq7 · DOI
  53. 10.1177/1464884912458662 · DOI
  54. Shoemaker P, 2014, Mediating the Message in the 21st Century: A Media Sociology Perspective
  55. Siapera E, 2013, Culture Machine, 14, 1
  56. Smyrnaios N, 2012, Paper presented at the World Media Economics and Management Conference, 23
  57. Starkman D, 2014, The Watchdog That Didn’t Bark: The Financial Crisis and the Disappearance of Investigative Journalism
  58. 10.2307/3003160 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Tuchman G, 1978, Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality
  60. 10.1080/21670811.2012.741316 · DOI
  61. 10.1017/CBO9781139565875.010 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Nechushtai, E.
Affiliations
Columbia University, USA
Venue
Journalism
Published
2017-08-15
Volume
19
Issue
8
Pages
1043-1058
ISSN
  • 1464-8849
  • 1741-3001
Cited by
135
References
2
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review