To the Federal Trade Commission, Apple News has been in the thick of a raging political argument over claims the platform is discriminating conservative news organizations. What started as a critique by a media watchdog group has now turned out to be more of a larger discussion, about technology, editorial judgment, and how the use of algorithms can shape the discourse of the people. With the political tensions in the United States still shaping the corporate accountability, the news aggregation service at Apple is under new scrutiny on how it does the curation of content to its millions of users.
The scoop was further boosted when the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog group, itself published a report in which it alleged that Apple News had shut out right-leaning news outlets out of the top 20 morning news stories in a recent look at the news source. The group claims that the non-appearance was not by chance but a sign of a bigger trend. The assertion rapidly spread through the conservative media and even was escalated by some political leaders, including the US President Donald Trump. To critics, the matter is not simply a matter of editorial preference, but what they term a methodical marginalization of ideological opinions.
This issue got a notch higher as the Federal Trade Commission chair, Andrew Ferguson, wrote a formal letter to Apple, where he argued about the allegations. In the letter, Ferguson asked the company to review its policies and also make sure that its practices do not go contrary to consumer laws protecting consumers. He did not go as far as to make direct legal threats since he understood the scope of the authority of the agency. He said, The FTC is not the speech police. But the Congress has required us to save consumers against material misrepresentations and omissions even in the case where the product or service provided to consumers is a speech-related product. He also wrote, I urge you to overhaul a thorough audit of the terms of service at Apple and to make sure that Apple News is behave as it regulates its coverage articles in accordance with its terms.
The letter is symbolic even though the FTC lacks the legal authority to coerce Apple News to change its algorithm or editorial policies. The participation by federal agencies in content curation is not a regular occurrence since the agencies seldom make a public appearance in such issues unless there is a consumer protection overlay. The participation of FTC is an indicator that regulators have become more concerned about the impact on people via content ranking and selection in the digital platform.
Apple refused to address the allegations, and it still holds to its long-standing background that Apple News focuses on journalistic integrity and quality reporting. The site has been known to have aggregated articles of over 3000 publications and has continuously been ranked as one of the most commonly used news applications in the United States, Canada, and Australia. It had been reported in January as the top news app in some of these markets and second-best in popularity in the United Kingdom. Its size and distribution ensure that even minor algorithmic choices can impact the population with a lot of exposure to specific stories or opinions.
The key issue is the algorithm that drives Apple News. Similar to numerous digitalized services nowadays, the service is based on automated systems that are able to customize the content depending on user behavior, preferences and engagement trends. Algorithms at the company have not focused on ideological filters, but rather reader responses. Ideally, it implies that the content that is displayed on the frontlines is not influenced by political inclination, but user demand. However, critics claim that algorithms are as neutral as the parameters which are created by the designers, and the transparency of these parameters is minimal.
Apple has on record declared that its platform is all about quality journalism. It does not allow personal blogs, blatant promotional materials, or websites whose main content is to collect and repackage stories of other publishing firms according to its policies. Another ban in the company is the content that includes factual errors or cannot be classified as journalistic according to the widely accepted standards. Although these rules are presented as the attempts to shield the readers against misinformation and substandard reporting, opponents wonder whether such rules can actually hurt some sources.
This conflict between editorial good sense and ideological dispassion is not a recent phenomenon at Apple. Other political factions experience the same allegations in digital platforms throughout the technology industry and sense that they are not represented or misrepresented. Over the last few years, the discussion regarding content moderation has become more heated, and it especially stands out as the technology companies became main gatekeepers of information. The news apps have become not only a convenient tool but a major source of political awareness to many users.
Consumer wise, the problem is in the area of trust. Users require news sites to provide them with true information without concealed selfish motives. Simultaneously, the right that is held by private companies is to implement editorial principles with which the values of the brand and the business model correspond. Balancing these principles has been quite difficult. Being open on the way stories are chosen and ranked could assist in alleviating suspicion, yet the complete revelation of the algorithmic mechanisms is frequently confined by proprietary interests.
There is the regulatory problem that further complicates the matter. Although the stance of FTC does not require urgent modifications, the very fact that it is publicly researching the question indicates the larger governmental concern on the way speech-related products are functioning. In his letter, Ferguson meticulously packaged the problem in a way that it is not a question of speech on policing but rather, will the consumers be misinformed about the way services work. That difference mirrors subtle legal environment where the freedom of expression, corporate rights and rights of consumers meet.
In the case of Apple, the scandal comes at a moment when tech firms are already facing increased attention to market dominance and privacy issues, as well as their decisions and actions related to content moderation. Any sense of favoritism, justified or not, can affect the level of trust and political connections of the population. The reaction, or lack of reaction by the company, can inform the future development of the story in the next few months.
The case of the Apple News controversy is fundamentally about what is right and wrong in the digital era. Are the news aggregation sites obligated to pursue ideological balance, or is it their first duty to maintain editorial quality standards, in their own conceptualization? Is it possible to have unbiased algorithms around a polarized political landscape? And to what extent is transparency reasonable to the consumers of the private technology companies?
