I think it more reflects changing opinion of general public.
As much as tech companies try to make them self look up small upstarts fighting uphill battle, they are one of the most influential industry of our time.
In 90s there were oil companies and tobacco companies on the front pages, now it's tech companies time.
Right, but the fact that there's any movement in the industry at all, stories generating discussions such as this one, groups like the Tech Workers Coalition gaining attention, etc., can mean there's some trend shifting. Unless you think the news is selectively focusing on stories to cover and this is all media manufactured.
And when change occurs, whether a social trend, or new product type, or whatever- the pioneers tend to be smaller examples rather than high-profile, no?
Tech companies still have exceptionally high public favorability compared to other major businesses. They don't even show up on most-hated lists, but get much higher-profile media negativity than loathed companies like Time Warner.
A particularly interesting metric from that article is watching how favorability tracks media coverage. United and Volkswagen abruptly lost significant favorability during their recent scandals, but Facebook's favorability is completely stable. That looks to me like a sign of the media pushing a view that isn't resonating publicly.
This stuff has been on the front pages of mainstream media for long enough. Ask your non-tech acquaintances what they think about Google, Facebook etc - you might be surprised.
I agree. Disregarding any potential bias from NYT, I find it important that some major publications hammer it home to ordinary people that alas the Tech industry has joined the ranks of big pharma, big finance and arms manufacturers to become just as untrustworthy as the incumbent bad guys.
People still see Tech as benign, but it has been twisted from the early starry-eyed technologists who wanted to change the world for the better, and it has become just another big industry power block that looks after only it's own profits to the exclusion of everything else.
I guess I agree, but covering companies like Google or Amazon or Apple or whatever, no longer feels like "tech" journalism. It isn't niche or easily categorized anymore. It is just journalism. Much like covering Exxon isn't "energy" journalism. I don't feel "whiplashed" by the shift in coverage, I just feel like people now care about these companies whereas 10 years ago they weren't that important.
The coverage that Google currently gets feels much like the coverage that Microsoft was receiving in the 90s and early to mid 2000s. There hasn't been a shift really, just Microsoft was relevant earlier.
Tech companies are some of the largest and most influential companies in the world, and people are just now starting to understand what it means to have their lives influenced by wide-reaching algorithms. Sounds like a great topic for journalism to me.
Regardless of the motivation, NYT's recent algorithm-centric investigations (like the YouTube one a month or two back) are really interested and well-researched.
Probably has more to do with the fact that tech companies in general actively try to portray a progressive, benevolent do good image of themselves. Because of that, when they run amuck it's more news worthy or at least more salacious than when your typical scummy corporation does the same.
As someone in the industry I would caution everyone techy to take such articles with a grain of salt. Most of these articles are PR pieces by WS to lure tech talent. Yes tech is making a huge impact and it has been for a whole but not replacing everyone.
If you take a look, its not doing investigations. Its just talking about cool places. Tech used to just be talking about cool gadgets.
I believe them when they say it was "top down" but also it was self-evident that this would happen if tech companies went to a small part of the economy to the biggest in the world.
You can talk about the rivalries between NYTimes and FB/Twitter - but ultimately it just seems like they decided to treat it like a serious matter which was predictable/good. If overnight the airline and hotel companies became the most powerful in the world, then I think the travel section would be more critical and it would have nothing to do with NYT trying to get revenge.
I think it’s a sign of the times that NYT is willing to hire authors specializing in covering tech with a skeptical perspective. Newspapers would first criticize the government, then during the Industrial revolution they branded the entrepreneurs as ”captains of industry” or ”robber barons” which was a sign of how they wielded huge influence over the population.
Now we’re in a similar place with tech. Tech entrepreneurs have been branded as ”disruptors” saving us from the establishment for the better part of two decades but now there’s a bigger diversity of spins on these tech stories, leaning a bit on the negative side. I think the pendulum will swing back to positive if these companies get their act together and do more to protect users, and especially if the governments bust their monopolies. That would maybe generate a lot of sympathy.
I’ve definitely noticed tech, especially tech press, getting much more political and negative in the last few years.
I don’t really know if it’s the WHOLE of tech (or just how it’s reported), but it definitely feels like a downer right now.
As a tech liberal dreamer, it’s totally getting to me.
I want to read about interesting new solutions to problems, but at the moment it seems mostly like negative press about Uber.
Obviously it’s responsible to call it when conpanies do bad things, but is tech really unethical on the scale of pharma or agrobusiness or fast food? Doesn’t seem so. ( I get that they’re tech press so they’ll only report on tech, but context would be nice).
Four of the top five largest companies are tech companies. Tech is arguably the most powerful industry in the world. It has a huge impact on almost every aspect of our day-to-day lives.
The goal of journalism is to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted", so why should publishers not take a critical stance toward some of the most comfortable people in the history of humankind?
The bit about ad revenue was actually specifically called out here as probably not the story.
The interesting part to me is the overall positive sentiment towards tech in general, because you are right - at least for specific companies, sentiment as reported by a local poll of people I play games with, Elon and FB are the literal devil.
As much as tech companies try to make them self look up small upstarts fighting uphill battle, they are one of the most influential industry of our time.
In 90s there were oil companies and tobacco companies on the front pages, now it's tech companies time.
reply