• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Vox Media's extensive and undisclosed conflicts of interest

Status
Not open for further replies.

Joe

Member
qkPOrkw.jpg

It’s “simply more fun” and will give you “extra cool points,” Vox (12/14/16) declares of the latest gadget from its corporate cousin.

FAIR.org: Vox’s Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest, Explained
One of Vox’s major investors—second only to Comcast—is General Atlantic. The New York–based private equity firm invested $46.5 million in Vox Media in December 2014, roughly six months after the flagship website Vox.com launched. As part of the deal, General Atlantic VP Zachary Kaplan got a seat on Vox Media’s corporate board.
General Atlantic also invests in several technology and media companies Vox Media covers, without Vox disclosing this fact.

For example, General Atlantic was one investor in a recent $1.8 billion fundraising round for Snap, Inc., the company formerly known as SnapChat that makes the popular social media photo app by the same name. Vox’s coverage of Snapchat since General Atlantic’s May 2016 investment has been glossy and favorable, primarily in its New Money section launched in October:

Snapchat’s $25 Billion Initial Public Offering, Explained for People Over 30 (10/6/16)
The Snapchat Spectacles Craze, Explained (12/14/16)

Nowhere in these flattering articles is it mentioned that Vox Media shares a sizable investor and board member with a private equity firm invested in Snap, Inc. The October article is an explainer on why Snapchat’s large IPO is justified, and the December post is indistinguishable from a Snap, Inc. press release.
The same day, Vox Media’s tech vertical, The Verge, also ran something that read like an ad with no disclosure:

You Can Get Prescription Lenses for Your Spectacles for as Little as $29 (12/14/16)
It’s common for tech websites to run puff copy for products, but in the context of a shared investor and Vox’s corresponding post, the lack of clear disclosure does a disservice to Vox’s readers.
General Atlantic was also one of three lead investors in a $1.5 billion fundraising round for AirBnb in December 2015. While Vox has been critical of AirBnb’s high-profile problems with racist users, the New Money vertical was quick to defend the San Fransisco room-sharing giant after New York state passed restrictive legislation—again, without any disclosure of General Atlantic’s investment: “New York’s Crackdown on ‘Commercial’ Airbnb Listings Is Misguided” (11/18/16).

When asked for comment on their disclosure policy, Vox managing editor Lauren Williams wrote back, “That’s something we’ve been thinking about, and we plan to post one in the new year.” A follow-up email asking whether Vox covering companies owned by its major investors was a potential problem has had no response so far.
Vox Media also shares a major investor, Comcast (via the cable giant’s NBCUniversal subsidiary), with BuzzFeed. The cable giant gave both companies $200 million in August 2015, and gave Buzzfeed another $200 million in October 2016. On Monday, Vox Media’s ReCode (12/19/16) published what was literally a press release from BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti without disclosing this shared investor.
Vox has also frequently written directly on Comcast without any disclosure that it is its primary investor. One explainer from last year (4/24/15) detailing the failed Comcast/Time Warner merger didn’t mention this fact at all—a stark omission even by the most liberal standards of disclosure.

While it’s not as journalistically problematic, Vox’s television writers frequently give fawning reviews of NBC shows (e.g., “NBC Is the Internet’s TV Network Punching Bag. But Its Fall Schedule Is Its Best in Years,” 8/16/16) without disclosing NBCUniversal is its primary investor (though, it should be noted, Vox did pan NBC’s Olympics coverage).
More dubiously, Vox has written articles embedded with “exclusive” episodes of SeeSo shows.

Curious how Vox got such a scoop? Probably because SeeSo is a subscription service owned by NBCUniversal—a fact not disclosed in these puff pieces, or any of Vox’s television coverage.
Indeed, the closest one can get to disclosure guidelines comes from a rather defensive post last year (10/27/15) from TV and culture writer Todd VanDerWerff after Zaid Jilani (AlterNet, 10/26/15) and others brought up the fact that VanDerWerff wrote a glowing endorsement of Hulu without disclosing that the video streaming service and Vox shared an investor in NBCUniversal. Basically, VanDerWerff insisted that NBCUniversal is a “minority shareholder” in Vox Media (and therefore beneath mention), despite the fact that two-thirds of the cash Vox has raised to date has come from the media giant. Because Vox Media is a private company, shareholder breakdown is impossible to determine, but insisting it’s “minor” is misleading to the average SEC-illiterate reader.

FAIR.org: Vox Media has had disclosure problems in the past
Comcast-Owned Vox Explains the Great Deal You’re Getting From Comcast
It appears Ezra Klein’s new media startup Vox is taking on many of the habits of old media—like blurring the lines between business and editorial by running a thinly disguised commercial for Comcast, the cable giant that not only seeded Vox‘s initial run, but recently invested $200 million more in its parent, Vox Media, Inc.

The September 8 explainer by Todd VanDerWerff, caught by Gawker’s Sam Biddle, courageously “explains” why Comcast’s policy of bundling cable is actually in the user’s best interest.
The idea that a media outlet partly owned by a cable company would run an article arguing cable policies are actually good for the consumer is bad enough, but Vox didn’t even disclose the rather glaring conflict of interest until it was publicly shamed on social media.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
I think the disclosure problem is easy: To the extent that anyone could ever want a disclosure, there should be one. That's clear cut. It shouldn't necessarily be a columnist's job to track this, but anyone exercising editorial oversight should put disclaimers on any of these things.

The conflict of interest problem typically should be resolved by having a public editor whose job it is to challenge company reporting ethics. With ownership consolidation being what it is it's going to become increasingly impossible to avoid coverage of mutual owner or investor products. I don't think it's inherently wrong for a TV writer to say Cable is a good deal or a gadget writer to say a product is good; but it is wrong if they were assigned those stories because of an erosion of the editorial/advertising firewall or editorial tampering in balanced pieces to represent financial interests.

The value of a public editor is that it's not just their job to criticize the publication when it falls short, it's also their job to explain in greater depths to the public cases that may outwardly seem troublesome but actually do reflect editorial best practices.

Disclosures:
- I don't read Vox sites because their editorial voice is absolutely garbage and I think Voxsplaining has been a very detrimental influence on not only their own authors, but on competitors to basically all of their verticals.
- I do own Snapchat spectacles and they seem like a cool product but I'm not a gazillionaire venture capitalist so I wasn't paid to say that.
- FAIR sucks
- Comcast sucks
 

sphagnum

Banned
Good to know. Always gotta read between the lines and remember the biases that can occur within any media group due to their funding structure.
 

Brakke

Banned
Some of these seem like a stretch but also most of the articles they're sighting are like... clearly low-quality and bad, lol. I dunno if Vox should be obligated to disclose all those relationships, but it's probably good strategy. Good that people are keeping an eye out, anyway.
 

Joe

Member
I don't think undisclosed conflicts of interest are inherently bad or "evil" but I do think, in a best-case scenario, they are extremely careless and lazy. I also believe that any self-respecting media outlet should go out of its way to be as transparent as possible.

If you're writing an article that directly affects your employers biggest investor then the readers must know about that relationship. As readers we should demand that level of transparency.

The fact that Vox has been called out on similar behavior before yet continues it is not a good look. It doesn't help that some of the articles look like straight-up advertorials.
 

Valhelm

contribute something
Vox Media represents the millennial liberal establishment at its smarmiest and most sanctimonious. Given their uncritical support for corporate politics and disingenuous representation of the alternative, I'm unsurprised that Ezra Klein and his gang are willing to compromise their journalistic integrity for a quick buck.

Vox is progressive, but that doesn't make its leadership immune from greed. Like Glenn Beck and Hannity, the owners of Vox are driven by material self-interest more than by sincere ideological convictions.
 
You'd be surprised how many companies have investment portfolios that could be seen as conflict of interest.

What exactly is voxsplaining

Vox started out by championing they'd be different by offering 'explainers' into the what and why of different topics. The problem is that so often they're talking to you, they're talking at you. Almost as if they're trying to make you feel stupid for not knowing these particular topics.
 
Vox Media represents the millennial liberal establishment at its smarmiest and most sanctimonious. Given their uncritical support for corporate politics and disingenuous representation of the alternative, I'm unsurprised that Ezra Klein and his gang are willing to compromise their journalistic integrity for a quick buck.

Vox is progressive, but that doesn't make its leadership immune from greed. Like Glenn Beck and Hannity, the owners of Vox are driven by material self-interest more than by sincere ideological convictions.

Matty Yglesias.
 

Valhelm

contribute something
Vox started out by championing they'd be different by offering 'explainers' into the what and why of different topics. The problem is that so often they're talking to you, they're talking at you. Almost as if they're trying to make you feel stupid for not knowing these particular topics.

And half the time, Vox's explanations leave you less informed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom