3 ms·

And surprisingly, not one mention of Murdoch. Let's be honest - this is old media trying to push their weight to keep margins. Facebook and Google have effecti

And surprisingly, not one mention of Murdoch. Let's be honest - this is old media trying to push their weight to keep margins. Facebook and Google have effectively replaced both clickbait and tabloid news sources, as well as the well-resourced, quality journalism by taking ad revenue off their hands. Google could easily setup a news sourcing hub themselves and self-cite news rather than relying on their external data feeds. This is political. Neither Google or Facebook is going to be paying a cent here. I find Google citing data safety annoying.

h0l0cube 6y ago
> And surprisingly, not one mention of Murdoch. "The law would force us to give an unfair advantage to one group of businesses - news media businesses - over everyone else who has a website, YouTube channel or small business." This wording doesn't suggest that Murdoch would have a better advantage than any other 'news media business'. Is there anything in the new laws to suggest, apart from capital/resources, that this is set to benefit any particular Australian media business over another? > Google could easily setup a news sourcing hub themselves and self-cite news rather than relying on their external data feeds. So they'd be paying for news content from established media enterprise, or paying journalists to write their own - as opposed to leaching off them. Seems like a win?
- cyphar 6y ago
  I agree with your broader point, though it should be noted that public broadcasters (namely ABC and SBS) will not be able to make use of certain rights under the new legislation (namely the forced arbitration system). So it does give slightly more favour to private media organisations -- though you could argue allowing the ABC or SBS to exercise those powers would violate their own charters (their duty is not to be competitive with other media).
  - rswail 6y ago
    Where in their charter does it say that it is one of their duties not to be competitive with other media? The only mention in the charter (it's really short) is: > (2) In the provision by the Corporation of its broadcasting services within Australia: > >(a) the Corporation shall take account of: > >(i) the broadcasting services provided by the commercial and community sectors of the Australian broadcasting system; It's a Murdoch/Nine/7West continuous whinge that ABC/SBS compete "unfairly", yet when it comes to actual community needs (eg emergency broadcasting, rural and regional reporting etc), they do squat in return for their spectrum and cable licenses.
    - cyphar 6y ago
      It's not that the charter says "you cannot be competitive with other media", it's that their charter doesn't say "you should be competitive with private media". The ABC and SBS exist to provide both information and entertainment with a specific focus -- not to try to be the most highly-rated channel in Australia. As a result, the ABC or SBS using the new powers under the proposed legislation wouldn't fall under their charter -- because the purpose of the legislation is to rectify an (alleged) power imbalance in the agreements between news companies and digital media. On balance (reading my comment again), I should probably have phrased it as "it is not their duty to compete with privately-owned media" rather than "[it is] their duty not to".

h0l0cube 6y ago

> And surprisingly, not one mention of Murdoch. "The law would force us to give an unfair advantage to one group of businesses - news media businesses - over everyone else who has a website, YouTube channel or small business." This wording doesn't suggest that Murdoch would have a better advantage than any other 'news media business'. Is there anything in the new laws to suggest, apart from capital/resources, that this is set to benefit any particular Australian media business over another? > Google could easily setup a news sourcing hub themselves and self-cite news rather than relying on their external data feeds. So they'd be paying for news content from established media enterprise, or paying journalists to write their own - as opposed to leaching off them. Seems like a win?

cyphar 6y ago
I agree with your broader point, though it should be noted that public broadcasters (namely ABC and SBS) will not be able to make use of certain rights under the new legislation (namely the forced arbitration system). So it does give slightly more favour to private media organisations -- though you could argue allowing the ABC or SBS to exercise those powers would violate their own charters (their duty is not to be competitive with other media).
- rswail 6y ago
  Where in their charter does it say that it is one of their duties not to be competitive with other media? The only mention in the charter (it's really short) is: > (2) In the provision by the Corporation of its broadcasting services within Australia: > >(a) the Corporation shall take account of: > >(i) the broadcasting services provided by the commercial and community sectors of the Australian broadcasting system; It's a Murdoch/Nine/7West continuous whinge that ABC/SBS compete "unfairly", yet when it comes to actual community needs (eg emergency broadcasting, rural and regional reporting etc), they do squat in return for their spectrum and cable licenses.
  - cyphar 6y ago
    It's not that the charter says "you cannot be competitive with other media", it's that their charter doesn't say "you should be competitive with private media". The ABC and SBS exist to provide both information and entertainment with a specific focus -- not to try to be the most highly-rated channel in Australia. As a result, the ABC or SBS using the new powers under the proposed legislation wouldn't fall under their charter -- because the purpose of the legislation is to rectify an (alleged) power imbalance in the agreements between news companies and digital media. On balance (reading my comment again), I should probably have phrased it as "it is not their duty to compete with privately-owned media" rather than "[it is] their duty not to".