Jeff Jarvis is a journalism professor and an expert on news and, in particular, digital platforms of news. His tweets, in a thread, just now are interesting and timely in my opinion. be sure to read the full thread:
As ever, Rupert Murdoch ruins everything for everyone. He has pushed ridiculous legislation in Australia to get platforms to pay him and big publishers. Facebook just said if that happens, they will forbid the posting of news, which hurts everyone. https://t.co/sD3EH9z5kF
— Jeff Jarvis (@jeffjarvis) September 1, 2020
As I have noted already, the proposed move by the government is foolish, ill-conceived and pandering to media giants. They choose where their content goes. They have demonstrated the value of journalism in all their giveaways and discount deals on platforms line the Apple News platform.
You can see how ridiculous the move is by excluding the ABC and SBS.
The proposal by the government is dressed as supporting journalism but, I suspect, it has nothing to do with this.
I think that’s a good outcome if Facebook blocks news. People might want their news for free in the same way that people want to download their movies for free. Problem is if no one pays for news, then journalism in its best form will disappear, just like the quality and budget for films will be reduced if movie piracy wins the day
I think the same way be a initiate performance than to imitate performance. When the iniators give it away as cannibalisn forces this type of leeching imitators die. Simple as that.
Should read “better to intiate performance….
they are free loaders. parasites and bullies can’t say it any clearer and are also recalcitrant
Facebook can get away with a news ban and it will make little difference to them but the other side will feel it. Facebook isn’t as exposed as Google who says they don’t make a lot off news but they do make a lot off their other digital services which the government could lean on for compliance.
Truth is if the regulation turns out to costly Facebook & Google (it won’t just stop with Australia) along with others will form their own news company. Then it will have truly blown up in Ruperts face because the sliver of influence he had left would evaporate. In fact it would be a nightmare for the right if lefty techies controlled a major news source.
More likely that dsgruntled reporters, jourlalists and commentators will start their own electronic media news channels as Facebook is losng influence as it becomes more a “granny gossip column” plus Dorothy Dix comes to mind it is the soapy arena for carrying gossip not newsworthy comment.
Careful what you wish for. I think it’s crazy at this point in time to be advocating the death of Newscorp. We need as many different and dissenting voices in the media landscape as possible. Look what’s happening in China and Russia. The few dissenters brave enough to put their head above the parapet get silenced, poisoned, executed or simply disappear.
Far from being scared of the internet the CCP and Russia are enthusiastically embracing the technology to control, monitor and cower their people. We might not agree with some media, it may not conform to our idea of the world. But it has served us well to have a large and differing media, some commercially based, some privately funded and some government funded. I rarely read newscorp publications, but I do respect their place in the media landscape. They have actually done some good investigative reporting, for example in the IBAC space and gangland murders.
This is stupid policy from Morrison. Brownnosing.
Once again our parliament and other parliaments/congress around the world will pass law as wanted by Lord Rupert Duke of World News.
I can not help but wonder if the recent withdrawal of one son from his defined line of accession to power when he departs this world is so that there is someone in place should his puppet Trump the Greatest loose the Presidential election in the US.
https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/do-facebook-and-google-protest-too-much-20200901-p55rc6.html
Do large media companies protest too much? Yes. This proposed code is policy being pursued for political purposes.
Read the article Mark. Stephen Bartholomeusz consistently writes balanced, well thought out pieces. Whereas Jeff Jarvis was nothing more than an expletive laden twitter rant.
The withdrawal of Newscorp from a lot of regional areas has actually been a good thing for local news. Admittedly the papers might often be weekly but they actually contain real news with a smattering of opinion pieces via letters to the editor and their column. We make more from one weekly paper than all the ones (including 2 dailies) it replaced due to being given a fair commission.
Main issue is that a lot of the new papers use facebook for free promotion and the stupidity of the government could kill that. But who cares as long as a few billionaires make a few more dollars. Not like any extra revenue is going to make new jobs for journalists. The covid support payments and relief showed that. Plenty of journos put out of work even after the government threw quarter of a billion at them while hobbling ABC funding.
PJ this is a very good point but a very secular one for Facebook.
There are other means of transition which are available for newsagents to promote the local paper.
Some Towns I know have used local radio and community commitees to spread the word. The neswagent in one of the Towns gave away every edition of the “new” publication for a fortnight.
It’s called community spirit.
Result extremely good.
Not everyone uses facebook especially the ederly so the market is exceptionally small for newsagents.
i believe they use facebook as an add on not miss out type extra to the main purpose because it’s ther and if it wasn’t their they would adjust.
The newspapers themselves use facebook both to promote the paper in general but also share stories. It’s effective and free promotion for the paper, as the posts can be put into community focused facebook groups.
This is because it’s available and yet they still decline in sales if it wasn’t available would they suffer? I think not.
Their bigger picture is advertising and it’s all consuming.
Deals continue to be made. Good for the future of Journalism
https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/news-corp-australia-signs-deal-with-facebook-20210316-p57b1f.html
Let’s wait and see how the money is used. Only the ABC has made a specific statement about how it would use the funds. I have no confidence News Corp will use the funds to invest in good public journalism.
It will be good for the ABC and all news outlets in general. Newscorp played a significant role in making it happen.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2021/03/17/alan-kohler-news-bargaining-code-dead/amp/
I quite like Alan Kohler. His last line really sums it up “ As for the market power of Google and Facebook – it’s one problem at a time”
I agree with him. They should have gone harder and really addressed Google and Facebooks market power. As to whether there will be more journalists employed as a result of this, who knows. It might though prevent newsrooms becoming smaller and smaller until they close. It is “all about the money” after all. Without money, the business model implodes. Same applies to Rupert, your business, my business or Alan Kohlers business.
Too True,Peter.
Peter No 19, the ABC was only included at the Insistence of the Independents in the Senate in alignment with the Opposition Scotty never intended for the ABC to get it after the original push by Lord Rupert Duke of World News.
Generally with regard Facebook et all they should be held responsible for the truth, decency, no personally abusive material and veracity of what they publish. They should be treated the same as any other form of media. If Facebook et all allow something to go on their website and be visible by others either a closed group or openly that to me is publishing. By my standards Mark here is a publisher with similar responsibilities (does a bloody good job). Further Gutter Journalism does not meet these standards in my view. Free Speech is a wonderful thing to be cherished but their must be standards. Why else does Graeme refuse to let some of these publications into his house.
DON’T misunderstand me I come from a family with a very respected Journalst- (ABC 1945-70’s) in the 1950’s free speech was what it sholud be. We always had open discussion free of bias.
We formed our own opinions.
We grew with the changing times and therefore I think “refuse” is too strong a word,
However I appreciate your drft in that I am selective for what is crap for me.
My real point is if the people reading the product are falling away then the product is failing.
For the more intelligent are moving on-We need to address the moving market not the failing one.
Free speech to my memory has always has slander and defamation laws attached. These have being used to set standards. As to the effectiveness or suitability of these laws today that is now under discussion in or Parliaments.
Yes they were then as well The difference being was in the up bringing and the no social media as it is today.
We were taught respect and not to say anything untoward others. Just have your opinion and move on.
just don’t buy the bloody paper..move on to a better read if you can find one.