Facebook ate and then ignored the news industry. It's hard, but we should leave it be
Facebook ate and then ignored the news industry. It's hard, but we should leave it be
Facebook profited from the decline of Australia's news organisations, but enforcing the News Media Bargaining Code will make a bad situation worse without solving the problem of who will pay for the news.
Try and get past the fact that this is sort-of about Facebook. Because it's more about the demise of news than it is about Facebook, specifically.
news organisations were never in the news business, Amanda Lotz, a professor of media studies at QUT, said.
"They were in the attention-attraction business.
"In another era, if you were an advertiser, a newspaper was a great place to be.
"But now there are just much better places to be."
The moment news moved online, and was "unbundled" from classifieds, sports results, movie listings, weather reports, celebrity gossip, and all the other reasons people bought newspapers or watched evening TV bulletins, the news business model was dead.
News by itself was never profitable, Professor Bruns said.
"Then advertising moved somewhere else.
"This was always going to happen via Facebook or other platforms."
It's a really fascinating read. We can all agree that independent journalism is valuable in our society, but ultimately, most of us don't so much seek news out as much as we encounter news as we go about our day.
I'm sure the TL;DR bot is about to entirely miss the nuance of the article. I recommend reading the whole thing.
You're viewing a single thread.
As a former journalist, I agree that a robust news industry is absolutely essential to a functioning democracy. And while that should make it something to support with tax revenue, in the US right now, it’s terrifying even to imagine what Trump 2.0 would do with that control. It isn’t comfortable to think what Biden would do to silence critics who are complicating his re-election campaign.
However, I have to disagree with the professors’ basic premise about the Media Bargaining Code taking money from a profitable business to prop up an unprofitable one. First, news should be viewed as a public service, not a business. Second, Facebook et al. established and grew their ad businesses by relaying journalists’ work; that’s worth something. The fact that FB no longer wants to pay for the content they’re profiting off of is just too damn bad. Third, the complaint about redistributing wealth doesn’t hold water since that’s exactly what the traditional news outlets’ own ad businesses did: transfer wealth from profitable businesses (largely retail and services) to support a less profitable one (journalism producers).
I’m not Australian, so arguably I don’t have a dog in this race. But it doesn’t sit well to watch Facebook rape and pillage an entire vital industry and then just walk away leaving it for dead. They must be held to account.
I think you’re wrong about government funded news. It will always be less biased than privately funded news because democratic governments (even Trump) are held accountable in a way that no private company ever will be.
We definitely shouldn’t get all our news from the government but it’s hardly the horror show Americans seem to think it is. Especially in a democratic country.
Facebook was not built on the backs of journalist has always been about chatting to friends and family first, strangers second, and news a distant third
Facebook has clearly stated they don’t profit off news. I’m inclined to believe them until proven otherwise, especially since I can open the Facebook app and there is literally no news anywhere to be seen.
I don't disagree with anything you've said here, but at the same time, what is the response?
- The Government insists that Facebook pays a royalty for news articles shared on its platform.
- Facebook bans news articles on its platform (again) instead of paying anything.
- Nobody on Facebook sees news; just disinformation and propaganda.
Facebook already has the engagement they want. While they grew that platform engagement partially from news content, they have it now and no longer need news content. In fact, if the article is to be believed, they no longer want news on their platform.
Facebook et al. established and grew their ad businesses by relaying journalists’ work
Omg I am getting sick of hearing this lie. No, Facebook does not use journalists' work. The send the newspapers readers. They are adding value to the news orgs by giving them customers. It's ridiculous to double dip by expecting Facebook to also pay for sending them traffic.
We both know that’s not how stereotypical FB users work. They read the news on the platform. Full stop. They didn’t pause doomscrolling to go read the same article on the producers’ websites.
There is no news on Facebook. There are links to news articles.
Which people don’t follow. Hell, they don’t even stop scrolling on Lemmy to click the links.
Lemmy is actually far worse than Facebook*. We often get AI to summarise the article, or even just post direct links to an archived version of the article that bypasses paywalls and/or stops them getting advertising revenue or viewership metrics.
As far as people not following, so? That's not Facebook stealing value from them. It's people deciding that there's no value to them in clicking through. Probably in no small part due to a perceived decline in quality of reporting that means the headline is often all people feel the need to read.
The fact that people see the title and thumbnail and decide not to click through is still not a valid reason to expect Facebook to pay news organisations anything.
* to be more accurate, the culture that has evolved on Lemmy. The platform itself is no better or worse than Facebook.
Friend, good editors are trained to write BLUF headlines. That’s just doing their job. So yes, FB still profits from their work and should pay for it.
In case you hadn't seen the BLUF acronym before (I hadn't, so was curious and looked it up), it stands for Bottom Line Up Front and it's about putting the most important information at the beginning of something.
Here's a case i hope helps, and is illustrative,
*Think of a newstand, an older style one. Painted dark green, a little kiosk with two stands either side, lets say street side in New York.
The operator of the newstand sets the papers, magazines, et al, out along the racks. Its general practice to face the most eye-catching part of each out towards the eyes of passers-by.
A potential customer stops walking and looks along the rack for a minute, looks at the Washington Post sitting there, maybe The Economist, but settles on the New York Times.
That customer has seen the front page of the Washington Post, maybe even perused The Economist a bit, but they settled on the New York Times.
In that situation are The Economist, and Washington Post entitled to a share of that newstands revenue from selling the New York Times? Afterall that customer did read the front covers, and then a little more of one of the rejected papers.*
Facebook and Google, et al act as today's equivalent of the newstand. The BLUF is no different from any other eye catching material editors/marketers put on their publications/products to generate sales. A marketer is trained to make a sale as enticing as possible, the enticement, in this case the BLUF, is not the product.
The news business might suck at the moment, but the news media bargaining code is not the solution.
Round peg, square hole.
Interesting analogy, but it doesn't apply. The Economist and Wapo were paid the wholesale rate for their papers whether the vendor sells them, gives them away, lines his birdcage with them, or burns them. Whether he sells them or uses them for decoration is irrelevant. All the Code does is restore that dynamic.
However, I have to disagree with the professors’ basic premise about the Media Bargaining Code taking money from a profitable business to prop up an unprofitable one. First, news should be viewed as a public service, not a business.
That wasn't the professor's point - that was the reporter's. But if you read on, another professor (of media studies) puts it quite aptly:
The reason for this was news organisations were never in the news business, Amanda Lotz, a professor of media studies at QUT, said. "They were in the attention-attraction business. "In another era, if you were an advertiser, a newspaper was a great place to be. "But now there are just much better places to be."
I honestly can't recall how long it's been, but it's been at least decades since there was a newspaper dedicated to just news. It's always been all the other stuff piled in - entertainment reading, comics, crosswords, classifieds, public notices, etc - that made a "news" paper worth reading, as well as the news itself.
This problem is older than Facebook. Facebook is simply the newest face of it.
… Code taking money from a profitable business to prop up an unprofitable one.
That wasn't the professor's point - that was the reporter's.
It seems an accurate reporting of the law, but true. My apologies.
The reason for this was news organisations were never in the news business, Amanda Lotz, a professor of media studies at QUT, said.
Media studies is not journalism. It’s an adjacent field. While she certainly has a point from her perspective, I wouldn’t call it the final arbiter in this case.
Media studies is not journalism
This isn't about journalism. It's about the fact that news orgs can only succeed if they can pay for themselves or be attached to larger money-making machines. That's why most mastheads are owned by large media conglomerates, and those that aren't have to charge subscription fees just to survive.
It seems to be about journalism and fair play. Media studies is tangential to that.
ETA: I take your point. But there are better options than allowing monopolies to emerge.
Personally, I often wonder about the mysterious role of editors....