Facebook, Google and Australia

[bickster]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

And it is a shame it’s being portrayed as the evil Murdock v the Evil Facepage, and then people take sides based on which they despise the most.

This really isn't my take on it, I hate them both. I'm looking both beyond that and trying to imagine where this leads and trying to replace the parties in my head as separate annonymous entities.

The Australian Gov / News Platforms are making an attack on the Open Internet and that is possibly an even greater threat to democracy. It's the very start of people actually owning cyberspace as opposed to individual jumping off points

I also just don't see the cause and effect in the same way as you do. Punishing Company A for something that Company B caused pretty much on its own just doesn't seem fair.

You keep sending me customers, I want paying for that just seems like a ludicrous argument and solution

[OutByEaster?]

21 minutes ago, blandy said:

I do and I do. Though I may be in a small minority, there are still enough of us to allow good journalism to thrive. The NYT is, the Guardian is (after missteps along the way) making it work on line. Agreed that the media brought a lot of their problems on themselves by giving away content, then paywalling, then grovelling, then clickbaiting and all the rest, though it’s easy to be wise in hindsight. But while they were floundering around they were given a great big shove back down the pit by the likes of Facepage and Yahoogle. I totally have the same take as @LondonLax on this, I think. And it is a shame it’s being portrayed as the evil Murdock v the Evil Facepage, and then people take sides based on which they despise the most. For me Facepage and Google offer nothing in terms of journalism, they’re parasites. They do other stuff that is of great use to people, or entertainment or whatever,  but they have nothing to offer in terms of journalism themselves, other than market dominance leading to orgs having to use them to display their wares. If they weren’t so monopolistic, then competition might dramatically alter the balance. Because despite ea relative few people like me paying for journalism, it’s largely funded through clicks. But advertisers want the most people to see their ad, so they pay the big bucks to the biggest number of page views, which lo and behold is google and Facepage who get the views through hosting other people’s content.

I think this is wrong. I think that it puts a responsibility on Facebook and to a lesser extent google that they don't have.

I think that if you think of cinema, if the films that are being made are rubbish, it's unlikely that the fault rests with the people who make films, they want to make good films, they're just being forced into making films of a certain type, films that sell, they're being forced into that by the studios, the studios want profit not art, and maybe they're let down a little by an audience not looking to be challenged, the cinemas on the other hand just want bums on seats, they'll show what the studio gives them and hope for the best - they don't care about quality they care only about attendance, they care that there are films and people come to see them.

So, in that example you seem to have facebook down as the studio when they're the cinema. I don't think we can blame the cinema for the quality of film, creative people will create and they want to create the best they can, the studios, or in this case the news publishers, will only finance the things that they think will sell and the cinemas will try to make money off whatever they've got.

I think we're blaming the wrong people for the decline of journalism, Facebook don't care about standards, they just want something to put on their feed that people might click on, they don't differentiate between a cat video and an expose of the banking system, that's not their interest - it's the news publishers that bear responsibility for the decline in journalistic standards, they are the gatekeepers of integrity and, at the mercy of finance they've sold it out.

I think this is Murdoch vs Facebook, I think there's another battle that's Murdoch vs journalism and I think there's probably a bigger battle of corporate facebook vs state (vs Murdoch), but I don't see a Facebook vs journalism - facebook have no interest journalism other than that it keeps coming and people click on it..

 

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

Sure, I know the Guardian has said it will be reinvested into the newsroom as they don’t have shareholders, I think a lot of them genuinely need the cash. You can’t go on the Guardian website without being bombarded with requests for donations to keep them going but they are still losing money.

Fairfax media used to be a well respected newspaper group producing centre left broadsheet newspapers (SMH, The Age etc). Unfortunately in the Facebook era they have been brought to their knees shedding all their investigatory journalism staff and bought up by a centre right television media company. Now they have Birmingham Mail style click bait headlines and regurgitate content from the Telegraph in the UK or the Washington Post/NYTimes in the US. 

Regional newspapers have shut down across the country, consolidating media into the bigger players like NewsCorp.

Facebook claim they are helpfully sending links to articles (or the ones that fit their algorithm) thereby providing a service to newspapers but they are also draining the well dry of operating revenue and sending it overseas. 

Hopefully something positive comes out of this action by the Aus government because the current model is broken as far as its impact on our society via the consolidation and dumbing down of news.

 

I'm sure some media properties need the cash, but Murdoch ones don't, by and large. I don't imagine old Rupert is going to break the habit of a lifetime and see the value in investing in more journalists in the newsroom. As I say, maybe I'll be proven wrong.

I agree with your conclusion; the reality is journalism is disappearing, and the consequences are going to be bleak. I'm on the fence about whether this specific policy is a good idea though.

[LondonLax]

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm sure some media properties need the cash, but Murdoch ones don't, by and large. I don't imagine old Rupert is going to break the habit of a lifetime and see the value in investing in more journalists in the newsroom. As I say, maybe I'll be proven wrong.

I agree with your conclusion; the reality is journalism is disappearing, and the consequences are going to be bleak. I'm on the fence about whether this specific policy is a good idea though.

NewsCorp is not immune. They see the writing on the wall and are downsizing their newspaper operations to focus on TV. They shut down over 100 of their papers in Australia last year, they keep a digital title for some of them but the news staff are consolidated out of a head office rather than being region based.

Quote

A total of 112 of Rupert Murdoch’s print newspapers will stop the presses, including 36 which will close altogether and 76 which will remain as online mastheads. News Corp will not specify how many staff each title will have, if any, or how much local reporting will continue.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/may/28/news-corp-announces-end-of-nearly-100-australian-print-newspapers-in-huge-shift-to-digital

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, LondonLax said:

NewsCorp is not immune. They see the writing on the wall and are downsizing their newspaper operations to focus on TV. They shut down over 100 of their papers in Australia last year, they keep a digital title for some of them but the news staff are consolidated out of a head office rather than being region based.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/may/28/news-corp-announces-end-of-nearly-100-australian-print-newspapers-in-huge-shift-to-digital

That's sort of what I mean . . . it's not that all of their properties are making money, but that they're already pivoting to TV so there's not going to be a major investment in the newsrooms of their smaller print media properties I wouldn't have thought. I'm sure they want to keep their national titles afloat, got to have some vehicles to agitate for the policies you want after all.

Again, maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe it won't go to executive pay and dividends; maybe it'll genuinely be used to put out a better print media product. But honestly, I'm not holding my breath.