All the anti-FB opinion articles on and off big-media domains. There are a large amount. You can just browse https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=facebook if you'd like. Many lack substance.
If you dig through that list to the articles that are actual journalism (as opposed to explicitly labeled opinion and commentary articles), the last 3 are:
- "Facebook Used People’s Data to Favor Certain Partners and Punish Rivals, Documents Show" [0]
- "A Hot Seat for Facebook, an Empty Chair for Zuckerberg and a Vow to Share Secret Files" [1]
- "On Thanksgiving Eve, Facebook Acknowledges Details of Times Investigation" [2]
All three strike me as substantive. Yes, the NYT opinion section is a bit fluffy, and yes, that strikes me as a problem in a world where folks are increasingly unable to distinguish between journalism and editorial, but at the end of the day commentary like that is what the "opinion" label is for.
Sure, if you add filters and dig you get substance. The initial contention was about the large amount of substanceless anti-FB content in the media in general, not specific types of content. That you have to dig is the issue, not what you get once you have done so.
I think any issue of substance getting media attention will also generate a lot of fluff/opinion commentary on the few articles of substance. I don't think this wave of media attention on Facebook is different.
