Facebook Whistle Blower
I was very interested to hear what differing news sources were reported on regarding Frances Haugen’s expected testifying for congress and 60 Minutes interview.
CNN Business reported on the subject in an article titled, What we know about the Facebook whistleblower by Rishi Iyengar and was published on October 5th. The report gives an overview of Haugen’s background as a computer engineer and dedicated supporter of “civic participation”. Joining Facebook in 2019 and working in their Civic Integrity Team throughout the coronavirus pandemic and 2020 Presidential election, Haugen described as being determined to reduce misinformation spread on internet platforms. Haugen alleged Facebook’s active “hiding” of research which proves the company’s many destructive aspects including mental health, government stability, and public relations.
The characterization of Haugen in this article suggests that she is nearly an activist for the control of misinformation online in their descriptive word choice of “whistleblower” and the continuously repeated use of the word “revelation” when portraying her decision to leave Facebook and share her experiences with Congress. With such a breaking news story, the article remains mostly informative and attempts to be unbiased throughout. An interesting outcome of this report is that it focused mostly on Haugen’s personal actions and statements rather than the topic that she is speaking about. With little mention of specific findings, the article gives mostly overviews of the issues discussed in the documents.
Fox Business’s report on the recent event is titled Facebook whistleblower accuses the company of 'tearing our societies apart' by Michael Lee. Haugen is again described as a “whistleblower” which is now becoming the commonality throughout reports on the subject. While still remaining primarily informative, this report takes a more direct approach to the subject. Word choices like “accusing” and “took aim” are used to describe Haugen’s actions which defer from CNN’s common uses of “alleges” or “says”.
The article also has more uses of specific accusations brought by the documents presented and describes the reasoning for Facebook’s actions as being “money-making”.
An interesting contrast found between the two articles would be their final statement. Both reports use quotes to conclude but from differing sources. While CNN gave a primarily Haugen-based report to present her knowledge, background, and intentions, they end with one of her own statements. "As long as Facebook is operating in the dark, it is accountable to no one. And it will continue to make choices that go against the common good." With such a biographical report, CNN Business has presented the issue in a more personal way and nearly focuses on Haugen more than her “cause”.
Fox Business, however, presents the company’s alleged interests and resulting issues of the Facebook platform. Their article concluded with a response statement from Facebook themselves with the quote, “They "continue to make significant improvements to tackle the spread of misinformation and harmful content. To suggest we encourage bad content and do nothing is just not true." With the inclusion of this response, the report suggests that this is an ongoing and relevant topic with discourse to come.