5 ms·

The HN tax? FTC mulls taxing online news aggregators

34 points by joe_bleau 16y ago

kiba 16y ago
Look like not every news agencies is involved in some sort of conspiracy to create a news cartel supported by government tax dollars.
px 16y ago
I wonder if the Washington Times editorial board even bothered reading the FTC document: http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-discussion.pdf http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-d... There is no question that this is a newsworthy topic. But it is ironic that journalism of such poor quality is being used to defend the current journalistic system. I think the editorial is a bit of an over-reaction. Consider the following statements from the FTC document- We note that this draft does not represent final conclusions or recommendations by the Commission or FTC staff; it is solely for purposes of discussion, in particular at FTC roundtable discussions to be held on June 15, 2010, at the National Press Club. -and- We anticipate that different participants in the roundtables at which this document will be discussed will criticize some or all proposals, improve others, and add ideas of their own. The purpose of this document is precisely to encourage such additional analyses and brainstorming.
aaronsw 16y ago
If you read the actual report they're quoting (http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-discussion.pdf http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-d...) you'll see, as usual, that the _Washington Times_ is being totally dishonest. First, the report is simply a list of proposals news industry people have made about how to save their businesses, not new FTC proposals. Second, it isn't a tax -- it's simply talking about news providers providing licenses for their content to news aggregators. Third, the FTC isn't even talking about changing the law to create new legal rights against news aggregators. What they're actually talking about is removing antitrust barriers to news providers getting together and starting a joint licensing scheme. In short, this is less than nothing.
- alexyim 16y ago
  "In other words, government policy would encourage a tax on websites like the Drudge Report, a must-read source for the news links of the day, so that the agency can redistribute the funds collected to various newspapers. Such a tax would hit other news aggregators, such as Digg, Fark and Reddit, which not only gather links, but provide a forum for a lively and entertaining discussion of the issues raised by the stories. Fostering a robust public-policy debate, not saving a particular business model, should be the goal of journalism in the first place." Maybe this article isn't that well written or I'm not reading correctly, but I did get the impression that they are trying to charge for something
  - px 16y ago
    The editorial is definitely written that way. It doesn't exactly reflect what is in the FTC document, though.
- roboneal 16y ago
  Straight out of the source document -- "Nonetheless, a compulsory license places an effective tax on certain conduct." A tax by any other name is still a tax -- and if these ideas are enacted there would be an effective "news aggregrator" tax.
  - px 16y ago
    Regardless, the opening paragraphs of the source document make it clear that these are NOT formal policy recommendations.
    - roboneal 16y ago
      Agreed the source document labels itself as "POTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT THE REINVENTION OF JOURNALISM". So I don't see why the bashing of the Washington Times Editorial as "TOTALLY DISHONEST" -- which CLEARLY makes reference to the "May 28 Draft proposal" in the first paragraph. It's obvious that this represents a fairly accurate portrayal of the FTC's existing thinking and deserves to be scrutinized.
brolewis 16y ago
As a listener to NPR, I don't agree that there is a bias toward government spending programs. This, to me, gives more credance to the poor writing in the article. If the writer believes there is a bias, then provide reference to some articles that support their statement.
peteforde 16y ago
The Washington Times... not to be confused with The Washington Post, folks.
- hristov 16y ago
  It should not be confused with a newspaper in general.
anamax 16y ago
As the discussion at http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/05/29/ftc-protects-journalisms-past/ http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/05/29/ftc-protects-journalis... points out, the FTC folks didn't listen to the folks who they asked to comment. In particular, that document contains a number of false statements about what various news biz. "Yes, the omission of reporting and facts from the FTC is downright shocking. I sat in their hearing room and told them we found news sites making a sustainable living. Others who were doing it were there." "There was no doubt about what I said: The Batavian is advertiser supported and its profitable and growing (heck, we’ve doubled revenue since I was in DC with the FTC)."
roboneal 16y ago
The fact that the FTC feels that journalism NEEDS "reinventing" indicates a bias. Journalism is reinventing itself with market forces alone and doesn't NEED the Federal government to "fix" it.
- hristov 16y ago
  The problem is that all media, including some of the biggest proponents of the free market (News Corp) are clamoring for the FTC to somehow save their asses. So the FTC figures they have to do something. It may be a good idea for some people like you to send in comments to the effect that the FTC does not need to do anything. The problem with roundtables and public comments often is that people that need to scratch an itch are more likely to go to them, which means that they may result in skewed conclusions.

34 points by joe_bleau 16y ago

kiba 16y ago

Look like not every news agencies is involved in some sort of conspiracy to create a news cartel supported by government tax dollars.

px 16y ago

I wonder if the Washington Times editorial board even bothered reading the FTC document: http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-discussion.pdf http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-d... There is no question that this is a newsworthy topic. But it is ironic that journalism of such poor quality is being used to defend the current journalistic system. I think the editorial is a bit of an over-reaction. Consider the following statements from the FTC document- We note that this draft does not represent final conclusions or recommendations by the Commission or FTC staff; it is solely for purposes of discussion, in particular at FTC roundtable discussions to be held on June 15, 2010, at the National Press Club. -and- We anticipate that different participants in the roundtables at which this document will be discussed will criticize some or all proposals, improve others, and add ideas of their own. The purpose of this document is precisely to encourage such additional analyses and brainstorming.

aaronsw 16y ago

If you read the actual report they're quoting (http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-discussion.pdf http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-d...) you'll see, as usual, that the _Washington Times_ is being totally dishonest. First, the report is simply a list of proposals news industry people have made about how to save their businesses, not new FTC proposals. Second, it isn't a tax -- it's simply talking about news providers providing licenses for their content to news aggregators. Third, the FTC isn't even talking about changing the law to create new legal rights against news aggregators. What they're actually talking about is removing antitrust barriers to news providers getting together and starting a joint licensing scheme. In short, this is less than nothing.

alexyim 16y ago
"In other words, government policy would encourage a tax on websites like the Drudge Report, a must-read source for the news links of the day, so that the agency can redistribute the funds collected to various newspapers. Such a tax would hit other news aggregators, such as Digg, Fark and Reddit, which not only gather links, but provide a forum for a lively and entertaining discussion of the issues raised by the stories. Fostering a robust public-policy debate, not saving a particular business model, should be the goal of journalism in the first place." Maybe this article isn't that well written or I'm not reading correctly, but I did get the impression that they are trying to charge for something
- px 16y ago
  The editorial is definitely written that way. It doesn't exactly reflect what is in the FTC document, though.
roboneal 16y ago
Straight out of the source document -- "Nonetheless, a compulsory license places an effective tax on certain conduct." A tax by any other name is still a tax -- and if these ideas are enacted there would be an effective "news aggregrator" tax.
- px 16y ago
  Regardless, the opening paragraphs of the source document make it clear that these are NOT formal policy recommendations.
  - roboneal 16y ago
    Agreed the source document labels itself as "POTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT THE REINVENTION OF JOURNALISM". So I don't see why the bashing of the Washington Times Editorial as "TOTALLY DISHONEST" -- which CLEARLY makes reference to the "May 28 Draft proposal" in the first paragraph. It's obvious that this represents a fairly accurate portrayal of the FTC's existing thinking and deserves to be scrutinized.

brolewis 16y ago

As a listener to NPR, I don't agree that there is a bias toward government spending programs. This, to me, gives more credance to the poor writing in the article. If the writer believes there is a bias, then provide reference to some articles that support their statement.

peteforde 16y ago

The Washington Times... not to be confused with The Washington Post, folks.

hristov 16y ago
It should not be confused with a newspaper in general.

anamax 16y ago

As the discussion at http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/05/29/ftc-protects-journalisms-past/ http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/05/29/ftc-protects-journalis... points out, the FTC folks didn't listen to the folks who they asked to comment. In particular, that document contains a number of false statements about what various news biz. "Yes, the omission of reporting and facts from the FTC is downright shocking. I sat in their hearing room and told them we found news sites making a sustainable living. Others who were doing it were there." "There was no doubt about what I said: The Batavian is advertiser supported and its profitable and growing (heck, we’ve doubled revenue since I was in DC with the FTC)."

roboneal 16y ago

The fact that the FTC feels that journalism NEEDS "reinventing" indicates a bias. Journalism is reinventing itself with market forces alone and doesn't NEED the Federal government to "fix" it.

hristov 16y ago
The problem is that all media, including some of the biggest proponents of the free market (News Corp) are clamoring for the FTC to somehow save their asses. So the FTC figures they have to do something. It may be a good idea for some people like you to send in comments to the effect that the FTC does not need to do anything. The problem with roundtables and public comments often is that people that need to scratch an itch are more likely to go to them, which means that they may result in skewed conclusions.