Martin 1

The Rise of the Facebook Platform: How Facebook has Changed the Way Users Consume
Traditional Journalism

Emma Martin
MDST* 4500 (Applied Research Project)
Tuesday, 4:15
Professor Kelley
December 1, 2015

Martin 2
What would you ask for, if you could have anything you wanted, in exchange for
something you didnt value very much? (Yohalem 36) Faust, the legendary 16th century
German character, was presented with such a question. As an academic, he was successful, yet
he did not feel fulfilled. So in exchange for more knowledge and power, Faust traded his human
soul to the devil. At the time of this exchange, Faust requested the power to predict the future,
immediate travel to faraway locations, as well as the ability to reflect on significant events of the
past (Yohalem 36).
This Faustian bargain is a metaphor for what has happened during the digitalization era
of the 21st century. To strike a Faustian bargain is to be willing to sacrifice anything to satisfy a
limitless desire for knowledge or power (Faustian Bargain). Since the mid-1990s, traditional
newspaper publishing companies have been toying with the Faustian bargain through online
Web experiments (Ju, Jeong, and Chyi 1).
In early 1996, The New York Times introduced a Web site allowing readers in the United
States free and immediate access to their newspaper in return for the earliest signs of advertising
revenue and extended readership (Lewis). The New York Times is a primary example of a
company that used its reach and credibility (knowledge and power) online, to lower its costs of
daily print circulation, delivery and labour. What users did not know was the price they would
eventually pay to access such information 20 years later, as with any demonic gift, the true cost
of such things is seldom apparent at first (Yohalem 36). Today, users must pay a fee if they
want access to that knowledge and power. The Times Basic Digital Subscription is currently
$3.75 per week for daily user accessibility (Lewis).
However, in recent years, the growing popularity of social networking sites (SNSs) has
extended newspapers online experiments further to include platforms such as Facebook(Ju,

Martin 3
Jeong, and Chyi 1). Similar to Fausts requests, Facebook, as a news distribution platform, has
granted users online access to the 14-day weather forecast, information on news stories that
occur worldwide and the opportunity to comment on and share significant events that are
happening currently, or have already happened. Although Facebook offers users information
right at their fingertips, it is not a one-way benefactor. As a collector of user-generated content,
Facebook is able to determine what types of news users are most interested in. Like Fausts
great intellect and vast learning led him to know far too much (Yohalem 38), it is possible that
Facebooks boundless knowledge reaps the benefits of user interaction, more than the news
companies who publish the original stories.
Facebooks recent agreement with nine different media publishing companies including
Buzzfeed, The Atlantic, The New York Times and National Geographic (DOnfro), has allowed
these organizations to sell their own advertisements and keep the revenue, as well as have access
to Facebooks 1.4 billion active users (Schlesinger). Facebook, in exchange, is provided with
thorough news content and more online interaction from its users. One could argue that in this
Faustian bargain, Facebook ultimately does gain more from the relationship than its media
publishing partners because of its working status to solidify a default place where billions of
people go to get their news (Schlesinger). Since the Facebook algorithm, a mathematical
formula that predicts what users want to read, (Somaiya) has been designed to provide users
with the power and knowledge to communicate and share information as they wish (Friedman
57), news content publishers are no longer the primary trusted source for news. The problem is,
we have the most powerful distribution mechanism thats been created in a generation
(Kirkpatrick 217), but like Faust, even favourable knowledge and power can lead to
unfavourable consequences. If Facebooks algorithm approves the popularity of the content from

Martin 4
a news publishers website, the compensation, in terms of user web traffic, can be a deal breaker
for their online presence. Yet, if someone has power and can use it for good, then he could use
it for evil if he chose (Yohalem 38). This Faustian bargain is, therefore, similar to the symbiotic
relationship that has been created between traditional journalism and Facebook, a dependent
relationship of questionable mutual benefit.
For consumers, Facebook is distributing news in a format that is accessible, immediate
and tailored to their interests. For media companies, Facebook ensures that content is being read
and shared to generate revenue and gain a stable audience. However, traditional journalism needs
to be tailored to the medium in order to successfully achieve this balance. In order to remain
relevant, traditional journalism has been forced to adapt its content to the Facebook platform.
Therefore, the symbiotic relationship between traditional journalism and the Facebook platform
has dramatically altered the way in which people learn about and share current news. This
symbiotic relationship between news content and its distribution platform can be examined
through an analysis of media ecology focusing on social media as an evolving ecosystem.
Within this ecosystem, traditional news content is now distributed through the Facebook
platform, causing users to question news credibility differently when acquiring new information.
Traditional journalism heavily relies on Facebooks user engagement to promote active
participation in sharing news content. Thus, the distribution of news content through the
Facebook platform is altered because of each users news sharing behaviour.
Although there are both advantages and disadvantages to traditional news content
distribution via the Facebook platform, it is difficult to determine whether or not these effects
will have a long-term impact on media companies and consumers, due to the unknown economic
sustainability of Facebook in the future.

Martin 5
Media Ecology
An understanding of media ecology is imperative in fully appreciating the relationship
between Facebook as a distribution platform and traditional journalism. A media ecosystem can
be defined as, a community of organizations, publishers, authors, end users and audiences,
along with their environment, that function together as a unit (Naughton, From Gutenberg 11415). Facebooks intent is not to eliminate the role of traditional journalism but, instead, to act as a
resource to improve and extend traditional news delivery. This approach is similar to the arrival
of broadcast television in Britain in the 1950s. The emergence of television provided a new
platform for consumers to acquire news.
This posed a direct challenge to newspapers: if they were no longer to provide news,
what could they offer?... The so-called quality papers respondedby offering
increasing amounts of commentary and interpretation rather than raw news and, later
feature articles. TV didnt kill newspapersbut its arrival in the ecosystem forced them
to change. (Naughton, From Gutenberg 139)
By increasing the amount of user commentary and interpretation through traditional letters to the
editor, traditional journalism adapted to the arrival of a new distribution medium. In the present
digital media era, this form of adaptation is still relevant in traditional journalism methods.
Today, Facebook provides a platform for users to comment on and read varying interpretations
of news stories, which has forced traditional journalism to adapt in order to stay current. The
origins of media, and the direction in which they are headed, can be examined through the
properties of digital media ecology consisting of the transition from a push to pull medium. A
traditional newspaper is an example of a push medium: editors decide the content that is
created and distributed through print, to audiences, that are considered passive interpreters of the

Martin 6
information (Naughton, From Gutenberg 142). In contrast, Facebook represents a pull medium:
the consumer decides on the information they are most interested in and participate in news
sharing within his/her social networks (Naughton, From Gutenberg 143-44). This shift in media
ecology has paved the way for a symbiotic relationship between both traditional journalism and
Facebook.
Due to the fact that this interdependent relationship thrives as a coexisting unit, Facebook
could not develop without the support of traditional journalism. Facebooks contribution to the
symbiotic relationship can be viewed as weaker because it is dependent on traditional journalism
for secondary information to keep its content interesting and current. Without the use of
traditional news articles to connect with Facebooks likes and comments, there would be a
lack of convergence in interpersonal and mass communication (Winter, Brckner, and Krmer
431). While Facebook was never conceived as a news-generating medium, it becomes apparent
that journalistic practices are not existent within the social network. Facebooks screening
process is mediocre in comparison to traditional journalism; social media editors contribute little
by distributing short news and links to online articles that can be liked, shared and discussed by
its users. Traditional journalistic editing duties, on the other hand, consist of sifting, verifying,
corroborating, and redacting information that might endanger lives (Naughton, From Gutenberg
128), which demonstrates a certain level of due diligence that is necessary before distributing
news content to the public. By using these professional journalistic practices, the role of
traditional journalism is critical in the distribution of news on Facebook. Therefore, while
symbiotic in their relationship, Facebook can also be viewed as more dependent on traditional
journalism.

Martin 7
In order for both Facebook, as a distribution platform, and traditional journalism, as a
content creator, to survive in the media landscape, there is a strategic need to cater their unique
business models to a diverse consumer audience. Facebook would be able to survive without the
distribution of traditional news content due to its established oversized user base, virtual
entourage and extensive advertising revenue (Emmett). However, without the distribution of
news through videos, articles and content links, the platform is running out of ways to stay
relevant, interesting and current. Metcalfes Law explains the growth of many technologies,
such as Facebook, in the following way, as the number of people in the network grows, the
connectivity increases, and if people can link to each others content, the value grows at an
enormous rate (Hendler and Golbeck 15). Thus, without content to widely distribute and aid in
the platforms growth, Facebook as a technology would have little value and be nothing more
than a media tool.
While traditional journalism was the dominant medium for news dissemination in the
past, news organizations must continue developing new strategies and standards to stay pertinent
and exciting to all user preferences in the interactive digital era. According to David Bradley,
owner of the Atlantic Media Company, the next battle for control over content is a significant
one, not so much mandated by Facebook as by consumer preference (Carr). Therefore, in order
to stay essential in the media landscape, both Facebook and traditional journalism must cater
their unique business models to a young audience that enjoys acquiring knowledge about a vast
number of news topics, as well as to an older audience that prefers thorough knowledge on fewer
news topics.

Martin 8
News Credibility
News credibility is a key factor in determining whether or not Facebook is a viable
platform for traditional journalism. News credibility is how believable news content is, focusing
on the trustworthiness, reliability and bias of a source. Many believe that Facebook is a preferred
platform for traditional journalism because users are more interested in the content rather than
the source of information. This content encourages users to have low expectations in terms of
credibility of online use, and simply share news stories as long as they are interesting and
relevant to attract attention and initiate interactions (Ma, Sian Lee, and Hoe-Lian Goh 612).
Some users think that Facebook is a more objective platform for journalism because it provides
an outlet for users to exchange comments and ideas that help to shape their own opinions.
Audiences were found to have a desire to gain a more balanced understanding of news that
attracted them to Facebook postings (Marchi 256). Several consumers deem that the
comments provided by their friends and family on their social network is a trusted source of
information. These consumers use comments from their friends and family to validate their
apprehension when they are not convinced that professional news is truthful or trustworthy
(Marchi 255). Hermida et al. conducted a study that surveyed 1,600 Canadians to determine the
impact of social media spaces on news consumption. Research shows that,
Canadians were twice as likely to prefer news links and recommendations from friends
and family than from journalists or news organizations onFacebookWhile, as has
been cited, 43 per cent said they received their news from friends and family on social
networks only 20 per cent cited the account of a news organization or a journalist as a
source. (819)

Martin 9
Although many consumers consider Facebook to be a reliable platform for news distribution,
some research proves otherwise. The content that users like and share on Facebook helps to
determine what users might want to read in their news feed. This popularity contest juxtaposes
the idea that journalism has been a dominant force in the public construction of common
experience and a popular sense of what is real and important (Schudson 13). The problem then
becomes what users want to read on Facebook may not always be consistent with what is
newsworthy in the news. Traditional journalism focuses more on hard news, factual stories that
are serious and timely, whereas Facebook focuses more on soft news, which tends to be more
subjective in nature and is used to drive web traffic to the site. The previous problem extends due
to unanswered questions as to whether networked audiences are exposed to news that is popular
rather than important, and how far social recommendation limits exposure to a variety of news
sources (Hermida 822). Due to the fact that users believe what their friends and family post on
Facebook is trustworthy, the popular headlines and articles then become credible sources of
information. However, the popularity of the article cannot prove the credibility of the journalism.
This results in a lack of journalistic quality, where the newsworthiness and validity is questioned.
Yet, traditional journalism, unlike Facebook, is always supported by a known valid
source. When determining whether or not news distributed on Facebook is credible, users resort
to traditional journalism methods by looking for an editor or publisher to validate a reliable
source. If this information is not available, users cannot prove the validity of the information on
Facebook, but instead trust that the information provided by their social connections is accurate
and truthful. This can become problematic because although users family and friends offer
riveting sources of opinionmany do not fact check or show concern for reliability (Marchi
257). Therefore, a trusted source may not be a valid source. Even though users trust Facebook as

Martin 10
a reliable distribution platform, the information presented on social media may not be precise.
However, it still set the context and shaped the contours of a phenomenon rooted in the social,
technical, and business dynamics (Boyd 1), of what we know today as Web 2.0. Although
Facebook offers a platform for open discussion and varied points of view, users continue to trust
traditional journalism methods instead, as the information distributed is always supported by a
valid source.
With the accessibility to an abundance of news information through the Facebook
platform, users cannot be reassured that the distributed content provides them with a thorough
understanding of factual news. Rather, users know that they will receive a popular
representation of how the news is perceived by those in their social network. An issue to
consider is whether young people can decipher factual from false information (Marchi 257).
With the excessive amount of information users have access to at one time on Facebook, it is
difficult to cognitively process the relevance and importance of specific news topics. When
exposed to facilitated messages such as the news, audiences implement information processing
(Gearhart and Kang 245). Based on how they process the information, consumers will be
inclined to follow the crowd related to the high level of interaction and thorough discussion
provided by their social networks. Users are not necessarily receiving factual news, but instead
are gaining an understanding of what most users are interested in, similar to the creation of an
echo chamberwhere individuals are exposed only to views that match their own (Marchi
256).
User Engagement
User engagement is a pivotal aspect in understanding active participation in Facebook
and traditional journalism. User engagement can be defined as the involvement of consumers in

Martin 11
social, political and cultural events; the ability to use the site as a news discussion forum may
well make it a powerful platform for news sharing... (Oeldorf-Hirsch and Sundar 240). As the
fastest growing distribution medium for traditional journalism, Facebook can be seen as the
ultimate platform for social, political and cultural events. Since users are active members of the
Facebook community, they engage with each other and online content within the distribution
platform. Facebook users tend to come across current events through their social network more
so than seeking out the information through traditional journalism methods such as reading a
newspaper. Facebook acts as a platform for traditional journalism to transform from an
information medium to a discussion forum. Facebook encourages news sharing by using its
communication tools such as posting, commenting and tagging features. Through these
communication tools, there is greater user involvement because Facebook has become one of
the leading referrers to news sites through links shared by friends in the network, highlighting the
importance of personal context in engaging with the news (Oeldorf-Hirsch and Sundar 241).
Users feel more motivated to express their own opinions and persuade others regarding news
topics than those who do not use Facebook as a news-sharing platform. Information development
from news content occurs through cognitive processing strategies such as:
Elaboration strategies thinking about the news and recalling stories one has seen
before, mediate the relationship between attention to news and knowledge of current
events, en route to greater civic participation. Specifically elaborative actions, such as
talking with friends about stories, are more effective than internal reflection on the
content. (Oeldorf-Hirsch and Sundar 242)
Although discussing news stories within users social networks provides them with a broader
understanding of news content, it may not focus on the factual evidence that internal reflection of

Martin 12
traditional journalism provides. Through Facebooks use of communication tools, opinion-based
user engagement could modify the facts of traditional journalistic news. The use of opinion is
meant to provide an alternative point of view on news content without altering the truth.
Facebook transforms users to become what Bruns and Highfield call produsers: neitherusers
nor producers of news content, but a hybrid role in which they can share what is created by
another source as their own (16). User engagement with traditional journalistic content on
Facebook thus changes its value as hard news. Facebook is no longer effective in enhancing the
audiences perceptions of news, but, instead, Facebook is used for entertainment. Therefore,
Facebook changes hard news into soft news through user engagement based on the interjections
of opinion-based information. Facebooks distribution platform, afford[s] users with many fun
and entertaining features (e.g. videos, games, chat). Users may turn to these features to meet their
entertainment gratification (Lee and Ma 337), instead of using alternative features for news
sharing. Without traditional journalism, Facebook cannot drive continued engagement on its
own. Facebooks sharing features, likes and comments, do not allow for credible information to
drive conversation. In order for effective user engagement, Facebook heavily relies on traditional
journalism to provide factual content for discussion.
Traditional journalism heavily relies on Facebooks user engagement as the primary
means of distributing news to a large audience that cannot be as easily reached on their own
websites. Facebook utilizes user engagement as an advantage due to its multi-purpose platform.
Facebook distributes news that leads to stronger levels of engagement, which is a win for the
platform, the publisher and the readers (Carr). Users are therefore provided with engaging
opportunities to formulate opinions and positions on the information they read. Instead of
traditionally having to write a letter to the editor to voice an opinion on various issues, which is

Martin 13
neither as efficient nor convenient, Facebook provides an instantaneous forum for commentary
as a tool for active input on world issues. Before the adoption of Facebook, many media
companies were using technology software that made for an unpleasant user experience, hurt
user engagement and crippled their efforts to make money (Carr). Today, media companies
heavily rely on Facebooks user engagement, to improve their website traffic, article views, and
ultimately their economic success (Kumpel, Karnowski, and Keyling 1). User engagement
ultimately drives traditional journalism on Facebook because without it, current news articles
could not be distributed as quickly and directly to a large consumer base.
News Sharing Behaviour
The distribution of news content on Facebook is highly dependent on news sharing
behaviour, which differs from traditional news dissemination. News sharing behaviour is rich in
informational utilityhelps media consumers gain knowledge, develop an opinion, perform an
action, or reinforce an already-held position (Bobkowski 321). Informational utility aids in the
users evaluation of how significant news content is to his or her well-being and how one
interprets the information on Facebook. News sharing behaviour is a direct result of
informational utility and is evident in opinion leadership on social media networks. Opinion
leadership can be conceptualized as a domain-independent, trait-like set of personality
characteristics that are stable over time and across respondent groups (Bobkowski 324). Due to
the fact that relevant messages are being filtered to social networks based on news-sharing
behaviours, opinion leaders sway public opinion. News-sharing behaviour is monitored through
a traditional gate-keeping function; opinion leaders choose what is important to share and pass
information onto their networks. This is directly associated with the role of the editor in
traditional journalism, as the editor intends to present factual and objective information to the

Martin 14
public. As such, opinion leaders aid in the dissemination of news on social media; the use of the
term social media is aimed at embracing the social character of media as it presents itself in
media past, present, and future (Papacharissi 1).
In both traditional journalism and Facebook, it is beneficial to monitor news- sharing
behaviour as influential factors may help to stimulate active participation in media and act to
enhance the sustainability of these platforms (Ma, Sian Lee, and Hoe-Lian Goh 612). Influential
factors that drive active participation in news within the Facebook platform are: emotional
connections, easy distribution, close knit geographical boundaries and diverse social networks.
Users create emotional connections with friends and family within their social network, forming
strong ties that motivate active participation in the news. Due to the fact that users are invested in
the news, the stories shared are more relevant to their informational needs (Ma, Sian Lee, and
Hoe-Lian Goh 611). Furthermore, Facebooks easy accessibility and rapid distribution of news
drives active participation from users when trying to convey and attain information quickly. This
news-sharing behaviour is also attained within the users interconnected social network which
removes geographical constraints paired with access to an often diverse network of
individuals(Vitak and Ellison 252). This allows for further access to information and
therefore higher involvement in news sharing.
Although these influential factors allow for participants to use Facebook to seek advice
and information, network constraints and concernslimited some participants ability to fully
utilize the site for mobilizing these information-based resources (Vitak and Ellison 254). As a
result of news-sharing behaviours, opinion leaders on Facebook narrow the broad spectrum of
news seen in traditional journalism. The Facebook algorithm can be seen as an opinion leader in
and of itself. Opinion leaders use sharing behaviours to determine what content should be

Martin 15
distributed, similar to the algorithm that determines what is distributed based on user comments,
likes and shares. Unlike traditional journalism that intends to advise citizens to form their own
opinions on the news, opinion leaders unintentionally create a bias within their selective news
sharing process on Facebook. This approach is known as the social filter and is differentiated
with the well-trusted professional filter that describes the traditional relationship of news
providers to their audiences (Baresch et al. 65). Due to the fact that an individuals behavioural
preferences impact their social filter, there is consistent subjective information shared across
their social network. The news-sharing behaviour of opinion leaders on Facebook is influenced
by whether they are extroverted or introverted. For example, extroverts and those who are less
shy and less socially lonely share more information on Facebook than introverts, those who are
shy, and those who are more socially lonely (Bobkowski 324). In addition to these network
constraints, some users are concerned about the amount of positive feedback that is given to each
share because it drives focus and popularity of what will be distributed in the future. Therefore,
news-sharing behaviour is manipulated by what goes viral on Facebook rather than by a news
editors careful selection and assembling of factual information in traditional journalism
(Gillespie 2). Thus, a variety of news is not as objectively shared on Facebook as an
information-based resource compared to what is seen in traditional journalism.
In order for traditional journalism to increase its economic stability, it relies on Facebook
users news-sharing behaviours to drive its verified sources to a diverse audience. As consumers
of news media, it is imperative to be critical of a shared source whether it be from a family
member, friend, blogger or journalist. However, often times it is easy to misjudge a trusted
source due to the overwhelming headlines and popular features displayed by the number of likes,
shares and comments on Facebook. Users habitually assume that the shared behaviours they

Martin 16
partake in offline with their trusted social groups can be replicated online as well. Yet, sharing is
diverse and users share differently depending on whom they are sharing with (Lampinen 1). This
can become problematic when verified traditional journalism is shared on Facebook because the
platform knows what users want to read based on their interests, yet does not account for the
significance of the news, the source is secondary. Through user-sharing behaviour, Facebook is
able to collectively gather data that can be weighted for control and economic benefit for the
corporation (Lampinen 2). Nevertheless, this does not mean that over appealing headlines on a
traditional journalistic source are not designed for the same economic benefit. The news industry
is at a critical point and thus the challenge then becomes finding the right balance between
journalistic content and the distribution platform (Baughan). In order to ensure the industry
profits as a whole, the shared content on Facebook must properly reflect the verified source, as
well as the value of a diverse audience and the sharing behaviours to which it is catering.
Traditional journalism must not solely rely on the Facebook platform to distribute its news
and regulate online traffic, but instead find alternative methods of news distribution in the event that
Facebook no longer lends itself as a useful media tool. Media companies have chosen to use the
Facebook platform to distribute their information to its users primarily because Facebook provides
publishers with quicker loading features than what is offered on their own websites (Griffith). In
2014, Facebook was recognized as the second-largest driver of traffic to media companies websites
(Oremus). As a result of the hundreds of millions of people in the world who think that Facebook is
in fact the Internet (Naughton, Facebook's First 10 Years), its users heavily rely on the social
platform as a one-stop shop for all of their informational needs. However, as has been discussed,
too much of anything is never good. If media companies rely on Facebook too heavily to distribute
their news, and users expect to receive their news from the platform, both are at risk for what could

Martin 17
happen when, and if, Facebook decides it no longer is in need of news content distribution to grow as
a corporation. If Facebook loses interest in distributing news content and moves onto providing a
platform for the next best thing in digital media, Facebook users will continue to be Facebook users
and will no longer be directed towards media companies websites for reliable sources of news
content (Schlesinger). Therefore, to foster continued success, it is crucial that a balance must be
achieved between traditional print journalism and Facebook, as the evolution from previous
generations has demonstrated that the next best thing could be just around the corner.
To return to the initial metaphor, just as Faust felt that he was not accomplishing enough in
his life, media companies are realizing that traditional journalism methods are no longer
sufficient on their own to sustain audiences and revenue, and, therefore, they must develop new
methods for distribution. Parallel to the bargain and relationship Faust built with the devil to
acquire more knowledge and power, traditional journalism has joined the Facebook platform to
create a symbiotic relationship to further the distribution of its news content. As the devil, users
acknowledge Facebook as the primary source of news content, but traditional journalism
publishers are provided with Facebooks media tools. Therefore, like Faust asked to trade his
soul for limitless knowledge and power, publishers are sacrificing some credibility and proper
accreditation for their work in exchange for access to a vast and increasingly younger
audience. It has been shown that traditional journalism and Facebook are no longer able to
develop and expand on their own, but by creating this symbiotic relationship, it is necessary to
establish a balance between news content and distribution.
Neil Postmans comparison of two opposing literary visions, both Orwell and Huxley, is
relevant when considering the contrasting views on traditional journalism and Facebook as a
distribution platform. Orwell feared that what we hate would ruin us and Huxley feared the

Martin 18
opposite; what we love would ruin us. This Orwell- Huxley dichotomy is useful solely because
it illustrates the range of possibilities that we could be faced with as the network and society coevolve (Naughton, From Gutenberg 291). Within an Orwell vision, it can be assumed that
traditional journalism is the hated means of attaining information as it conceals the whole truth.
Whereas inside a Huxley vision, Facebook can be seen as a favourable means of attaining this
same information; however, with an abundance of knowledge, what is important can be lost in
irrelevance. Yet, through traditional journalisms adoption of Facebook to gain a wider audience
to distribute current news, perhaps Postman was wrong: its not an either-or scenario not
Orwell or Huxley, but both (Naughton, From Gutenberg 291). It is neither traditional
journalism nor Facebooks unique ability to distribute news content, but instead, the capacity to
work symbiotically in order to achieve a balance so that both remain relevant today.
It is impossible to predict whether or not the symbiotic relationship between traditional
journalism and Facebook as a distribution platform will be sustainable over time due to the everchanging media landscape. The unavoidable conclusion in determining the longevity of this
relationships impact on the way users learn about and share news content is too early to tell.
Traditional journalism has provided Facebook with an endless amount of information, which has
allowed Facebook to grow as a distribution platform. Yet, ultimately, like Fausts agreement
with the devil, we must consider if this Faustian bargain allows traditional journalism to remain
faithful to its roots and grounded in truth. Facebooks lifespan is relatively short, in relation to
traditional journalism, and because of this, only in retrospect will we be able to judge its ultimate
benefits and shortcomings. At present, we may only cast suspicious eyes and hope that we have
enough experience to recognize the truth.

Martin 19
We believe in the truth of their egotism, their amorality, their enslavement to their own
wicked brilliance, their blindness to the implications of their discoveries- because we
need to believe in it, to compensate for our own helplessness. We live longer, healthier,
more amusing lives, than did the simple folk in Fausts day, in the world science has
created. But our loss of control offends us. We suspect the motives of our benefactors.
What are they really after? What do they really know- and how did they come to know it?
(Yohalem 38)

Martin 20
Works Cited
Baresch, Brian, Lewis Knight, Dustin Harp, and Carolyn Yaschur. "Friends Who Choose
Your News: An Analysis of Content Links on Facebook." ISOJ: The Official Research
Journal of International Symposium on Online Journalism 1.2 (2011): 65-85. Web. 26
Oct. 2015.
Baughan, Nick. "Do Facebook, Twitter and Google Offer News Publishers Salvation?"
The Guardian. The Guardian, 15 Sept. 2015. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.
Bruns, Axel, and Tim Highfield. "Blogs, Twitter, and Breaking News: The Produsage of
Citizen Journalism." Produsing Theory in a Digital World: The Intersection of Audiences
and Production in Contemporary Theory 30 (2012): 15-32. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
Bobkowski, Peter S. "Sharing the News: Effects of Informational Utility and Opinion
Leadership on Online News Sharing." Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly
92.2 (2015): 320-45. Web. 13 Nov. 2015.
Boyd, Danah. "Social Media: A Phenomenon to Be Analyzed." Social Media + Society 1.1
(2015): 1-2. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.
Carr, David. "Facebook Offers Life Raft, but Publishers Are Wary." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 26 Oct. 2014. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.
D'Onfro, Jillian. "Facebook's Experiment to Publish News Articles Has Gotten Awfully
Quiet." Business Insider. Business Insider Inc, 07 June 2015. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.
Emmett, Arielle. "Networking News." American Journalism Review. Philip Merrill College of
Journalism, Dec. 2009. Web. 08 Oct. 2015.

Martin 21
Faustian Bargain. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: What Every American
Needs to Know. Ed. E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. 3rd ed. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 2002. Academic OneFile. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.
Friedman, Thomas L. The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century.
New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005. Print.
Gearhart, Sherice, and Seok Kang. "Social Media in Television News: The Effects of
Twitter and Facebook Comments on Journalism." Electronic News 8.4 (2014): 243-59.
Web. 25 Oct. 2015.
Gillespie, Tarleton. "Platforms Intervene." Social Media + Society 1.1 (2015): 1-2. Web.
2 Nov. 2015.
Griffith, Emily. "Why Nine Publishers Are Taking the Facebook Plunge." Fortune.
Fortune, 13 May 2015. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.
Hendler, James, and Jennifer Golbeck. "Metcalfe's Law, Web 2.0, and the Semantic
Web." Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 6.1 (2008):
14-20. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.
Hermida, Alfred, Fred Fletcher, Darryl Korell, and Donna Logan. "Share, Like,
Recommend." Journalism Studies 13.5-6 (2012): 815-24. Web. 17 Oct. 2015.
Ju, Alice, Sun Ho Jeong, and Hsiang Iris Chyi. "Will Social Media Save Newspapers?"
Journalism Practice 8.1 (2013): 1-17. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.
Kirkpatrick, David. The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the Company That Is
Connecting the World. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010. Print.

Martin 22
Kumpel, A. S., V. Karnowski, and T. Keyling. "News Sharing in Social Media: A
Review of Current Research on News Sharing Users, Content, and Networks." Social
Media + Society 1.2 (2015): 1-14. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.
Lampinen, Airi. "Deceptively Simple: Unpacking the Notion of "Sharing."" Social Media
and Society (2015): 1-2. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.
Lee, Chei Sian, and Long Ma. "News Sharing in Social Media: The Effect of
Gratifications and Prior Experience." Computers in Human Behavior 28.2 (2012): 33139. Web. 10 Oct. 2015.
Lewis, Peter H. "The New York Times Introduces a Web Site." The New York Times.
The New York Times, 21 Jan. 1996. Web. 04 Nov. 2015.
Ma, Long, Chei Sian Lee, and Dion Hoe-Lian Goh. "Understanding News Sharing in
Social Media." Online Information Review 38.5 (2014): 598-615. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.
Marchi, Regina. "With Facebook, Blogs, and Fake News, Teens Reject Journalistic
"Objectivity"" Journal of Communication Inquiry 36.3 (2012): 246-62. Web. 16 Oct.
2015.
Naughton, John. "Facebook's First 10 Years: Is It Now in Danger of Swallowing the
Web?" The Guardian. The Guardian, 1 Feb. 2014. Web. 16 Oct. 2015.
Naughton, John. From Gutenberg to Zuckerberg: What You Really Need to Know About
the Internet. London: Quercus, 2012. Print.
Oeldorf-Hirsch, Anne, and S. Shyam Sundar. "Posting, Commenting, and Tagging:
Effects of Sharing News Stories on Facebook." Computers in Human Behavior 44
(2015): 240-49. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.

Martin 23
Oremus, Will. "Facebook Is Eating the Media." Slate. Slate, 13 Jan. 2015. Web. 28 Oct.
2015.
Papacharissi, Zizi. "We Have Always Been Social." Social Media + Society 1.1 (2015):
1-2. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.
Schlesinger, Robert. "The World According to Facebook." U.S. News & World Report.
U.S. News & World Report, 15 May 2015. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.
Schudson, Michael. The Sociology of News. New York: Norton, 2003. Print.
Somaiya, Ravi. "How Facebook Is Changing the Way Its Users Consume Journalism."
The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Oct. 2014. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.
Vitak, J., and N. B. Ellison. "'There's a Network Out There You Might as Well Tap':
Exploring the Benefits of and Barriers to Exchanging Informational and Support-based
Resources on Facebook." New Media & Society 15.2 (2012): 243-59. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.
Yohalem, John. "Beating the Devil. What Meaning Does the Faust Legend Have for Us
Today?" Opera News 69.10 (2005): 36-40. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.
Winter, Stephan, Caroline Brckner, and Nicole C. Krmer. "They Came, They Liked,
They Commented: Social Influence on Facebook News Channels." Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking 18.8 (2015): 431-36. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.