So Apple's got its very own newsreader app, aptly called News. It will come natively installed on its iOS 9 mobile operating system this fall. This adds to the list of third parties that publishers have come to rely upon to distribute their stories. Apple says one of the most appealing things about News is stories will look and feel distinctive, as if they're coming directly from publishers' own sites, creating a sense of independent control over their own content.
And yet.
As with its Podcasts app, iTunes, and the App Store, News is Apple's app, which means Apple is the ultimate arbiter of what appears on it. Shortly after announcing News, the company released a publishing guide. So far, it seems targeted largely at developers testing the app and figuring out how to publish on it ahead of its official release. But the guide does say "channels" will need to be approved by Apple, meaning Apple will determine to some extent what is or is not allowed on News.
And this matters at a time when a few prominent tech companies are becoming the stewards of the news millions of people see, read, watch, and experience each day. Social sites like Facebook and Twitter are the entry point for many readers checking the news daily---not to mention Google News. And each has its own standards for what it will and will not allow to appear. Now that Apple has committed to becoming a publisher, another tech giant will be mediating the news that the public consumes. This means the standards Apple chooses to follow will have a direct impact on what millions of readers see---or don't see.
Apple News will be open to both established news organizations and self-published bloggers, according to the publishing guide. At first glance, it appears anyone with an iCloud account will be able to create a publishing channel, though Apple has said little beyond Monday's announcement about how the app will organize and present what likely will be a proliferation of user-generated content.
“We’re working on developing detailed content guidelines and policies for News,” the publishing guide explains in a section titled "Content Guidelines." So far, these include such general restrictions as "sponsored articles must be marked as such."
“Readers can report concerns about articles they find offensive or problematic," the guidelines say. "If your content is reported too many times, we may need to suspend or disable your channel.”
An Apple representative would not comment on specific content guidelines planned for News or how those guidelines may affect what readers see---either overtly through its channel approval process, or more covertly through News' algorithm, which the company said during its announcement of the app is intended to help users see more of what they want to see.
Still, Apple has for years had guidelines in place for its Podcasts and App Store apps, both of which would not exist without content created by amateur and professional users. These provide a sense of what kinds of content Apple is comfortable allowing through its gateway.
“We will reject Apps for any content or behavior that we believe is over the line. What line, you ask? Well, as a Supreme Court Justice once said, 'I'll know it when I see it.' And we think that you will also know it when you cross it,” the company says in its App Store review guidelines, referring to Justice Potter Stewart's definition of obscenity. "If your App is rejected, we have a Review Board that you can appeal to. If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps."
The guidelines for app developers also specifically ban violence, pornography, religious or cultural defamation as well as the more vague “objectionable content.” The company's Podcast approval guidelines, on the other hand, are less strictly tied to specific content but do note that "images or language that could be construed as racist, misogynist, or homophobic" may be reasons for rejection.
As opposed to Internet service providers or search engines, companies such as Apple and Facebook, which has its own "community standards," are not content-agnostic bulletin boards but interested parties, says Marjorie Heins, a civil liberties lawyer and founder of the Free Expression Policy Project. "They want to create a certain image," she says. "They can decide what you can post and what you can't."
Facebook, for example, uses algorithms to determine what readers see and will remove content that it says doesn't follow its guidelines. As Trevor Timm notes in a story on Facebook’s capability for censorship, the company famously cracked down on The New Yorker (owned by WIRED's parent company, Condé Nast), after it posted a cartoon with two dots on a woman’s chest indicating nipples. It has also taken down a photo of two men kissing and photos of women breastfeeding. In Russia, it blocked a page supporting an anti-Putin critic. In Turkey, it blocked images of the Muslim prophet Muhammad following the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris. And, for all users, it took down a well-known anarchist political activism page.
Facebook has come under fire for these actions, and Apple News will likely face similar criticism over what it determines it should approve, remove, and limit with its content guidelines.
And yet Facebook and Apple are publicly traded companies whose first obligation is shareholders, not a free marketplace of ideas. Neither company can afford to completely ignore what appears on their platforms.
"The problem with these things is we don't know the consequences until it happens to us because there's a lack of transparency around it," says Lina Dencik, a researcher at the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies. For example, she says, "It's not really clear why and how Facebook posts are removed. And even though they set these standards, they're constantly changing."
As news organizations begin publishing on Apple News and directly to Facebook via its Instant Articles tool, these tech giants will likely need to tread carefully. Clear guidelines for what's allowed and what isn't are a start. But if they're capriciously applied, they risk alienating the very content producers and news consumers they need to succeed. Like it or not, becoming a publisher makes these companies part of the editorial process.
"As a matter of law and policy, we don't want to be in the business of telling private businesses what they can and cannot censor," Heins says. "On the other hand, these companies have a lot of power, arguably more than governments, about what information we have access to."
