How is this not a conflict of interest that would preclude this particular journalist from covering this particular story? Facebook pays a portion of her bills. She owns Facebook stock. Her husband’s career at Facebook (and beyond) could be derailed by what she writes about Facebook. She has a material and vested interest in portraying Facebook in the best light possible.

At the very least an editors note disclosing such a substantial conflict ought to be at the top of the page, not the bottom. This really colors my opinion of NPR’s editorial and ethical standards.

Having a potential, perceived or realised conflict of interest doesn't stop you from covering a topic or giving your opinion. It should be advertised so that people consuming your opinion are aware and so can take it into account.

This is exactly what NPR and the journalist has done here.

Is it more of conflict of interest than the whistleblower potentially being entitled to a multi billion dollar commission from the SEC? Because that's barely been mentioned in any of the negative articles.

https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower

What is the conflict? She only gets paid if her claims are substantiated and lead to a substantial enforcement action. And perhaps I’m a bit too in the weeds on this sort of thing but when I read “whistleblower” I assume there is some avenue for remuneration either from the SEC or a qui tam suit or some other private right of action. Why would anyone blow their whole career up to bring fraud to light if they’re going to be financially hung out to dry?

I think most people view whistleblower protections as aligning the interests of the public and the whistleblower.

Edward Snowden didn't need hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to do the right thing. Of course there should be some kind of compensation for potential loss of income but offering 50-1000x someone's annual income (10-30% of the fine) creates an incentive to present the facts in the way that maximizes the payday rather than the public good.

> creates an incentive to present the facts in the way that maximizes the payday rather than the public good

Sure, it may create an incentive to do so. However, the facts must prove to be true and enforcement action must happen before the payout happens. So, however exaggerated the claims being made by the whistleblower in question, if it is not borne out by facts and substantiation, they are not getting anything for it. I am not sure I see an issue with that.

To answer your question, yes, it is more of a conflict of interest. A journalist is tasked with writing truthful articles that do not mislead the public. This holds at least for those who portray themselves as such (e.g., by making arguments appealing to our sense of truth or reason; i.e., anyone whose opinion we should at all value). In this case, however, the journalist is directly or indirectly paid by Facebook to spin the situation. As such, this is a conflict of interest (the integrity of journalism in particular being in the interest of the public).

The whistleblower must provide actionable (in court) and therefore truthful information. Such information was, by definition, kept secret from regulation authorities who are tasked with enforcing societal rules. Rewarding this the whistleblower is not a conflict of interest.

I mean, you could construe the wordings to say that the conflict is between loyalty towards the firm and loyalty to society / laws, and if this is a meaningful and acceptable rather than absurd contrast, then you are probably Elon Musk. For everyone else, it is hard to see a conflict of interest here.

Nobody says it's not a conflict of interest. The same conflict can be said to all massive media reporting FB bad news, as they compete in the big pool of ads money, right?

You can read the author’s defense of herself on her Twitter: https://twitter.com/anya1anya/status/1446282545700691969

“I've been covering kids + tech since ~2007. The Art of Screen Time pubbed in 2018. I've spoken on these topics at Aspen Ideas, Atlantic Fest, Apple, Google, SXSW. Collaborated with Mozilla. Adam's startup was acquired by Facebook in 2019. He works in hardware.”

Ouch. I missed this when I was reading it. Ugh, trying to navigate what is factually based and what is (potentially manufactured?) knee-jerk outrage is getting exhausting. Then there's the possibility that this piece is a manufactured wet blanket trying to douse the dumpster fire of negative reporting surrounding FB.

Note the difference between this coverage and e.g. NYT’s where there is little mention of all the Facebook trackers attached to their privacy project articles or the fact that they are so reliant on Facebook for income, and also so threatened by the company in the longer term.

Wow. I thought I was safer than that believing this article, since it was NPR.

IMO NPR isn't a particularly good quality source. I'd prob put it below even the NYT, and far below, say, The Atlantic

Ad Fontes puts NPR above both of those in terms of factual reporting. Then again, maybe Ad Fontes has their own biases. I don't know. I'm not an expert in this stuff, so I typically try to rely on those who appear to be. Maybe I'm just following the wrong piper.

https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Media-B...

That axis doesn't say they're better at factual reporting, at least not in the top couple buckets. Look at the category that the Atlantic and the NYT are in: it says "mix of fact reporting and analysis". That says nothing about the actual quality of reporting. In NPR's case, it just leads to the Vox problem of thinking you're simply "explaining the facts" while being completely unaware of the biases, blindspots, and inherent poor analysis you are smuggling into your articles.

(For an example of a source that has the same goal but does a better job, see something like PBS Newshour. They've got a pretty thorough leftward bias, but it doesn't compromise the quality of their reporting nearly as severely as it does NPR's).

The one surprise here is the claim that The Atlantic is farther left than the other sources mentioned, as far left as MSNBC. I still remember them as the first mainstream source brsve enough to break the taboo of acknowledging that the lunatic illiberalism sweeping the country had a solid foothold on the left too, after a couple years of being shocked by the phenomenon and the media's silence on it. They continue to publish taboo-breaking analysis; I can't think of any analogue the NYT to Bruenig or Friesersdorf.

NPR takes the cake for most deteriorated one-good news source over NYT. It is a real shame.

What are some better sources for news that you'd recommend?

I have started reading independent sources, especially those who can serve as 1st sources or are genuine experts. By and large, anyone who reports on something within hours of the news coming out or act as secondary sources are not worth your time.

Eg: Stratchery for tech, Sinocism for China, Derek Lowe for drug development, Razib Khan for Genomics based anthropology etc. I also follow a select few twitter handles that do all the 1st source reporting on specific topics. This is super useful for war/contentious zones like the Middle East & Kashmir, etc. Statistically sound sources like 538 and Pew Research tend to be pretty good too.

In some cases, reading somewhat biased sources on each side is also helpful. Sources like Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, Greenwald, etc., all have their biases, but they have a high moral bar. They never lie, but their biases do make them opine in ways that can sometimes include jumping to conclusions or purposely ignoring possible causations. Either ways, they are a part of healthy media diet. I generally like things coming out of the Rat-o-sphere & Scott Alexander, as they have a high bar on what constitutes a good source or proof.

The Economist and The Atlantic have been doing relatively good even handed reporting. NYT seems like it is in an internal crisis, but it does occasionally produce gems when reporting as 1st sources. WaPo/Guardian/BBC have long stopped being worth my time. In India, I really like The Print.

Hope that helps.

I agree with 100% of this except for Klein. He and Noah Smith baffle me in that they seem to be smart but are somehow constantly, extremely wrong, and consistently engage with others in intellectually dishonest ways. It's super bizarre (in particular because my overall worldview is pretty similar to theirs).

Let's assume the author wrote the biggest fluff piece about Facebook imaginable. how much do you think it would affect the stock? a penny? Focusing on conflict of interest is just another lifehack to dismiss someone's argument without having to actually argue against its merits.