News Industry Argues Google and Facebook 'Rob Journalism of Its Revenue', Seek Government Help (usatoday.com) 250
This week USA Today's former editor-in-chief argued that "Tech overlords Google and Facebook have used monopoly to rob journalism of its revenue," in an op-ed shared by schwit1:
Over the past decade, the news business has endured a bloodbath, with tens of thousands of journalists losing their jobs amid mass layoffs. The irony is, more people than ever are consuming news... Why the disconnect? Look no further than a new study by the News Media Alliance, which found that in 2018, Google made $4.7 billion off of news content -- almost as much as every news organization in America combined made from digital ads last year. Yet Google paid a grand total of zero for the privilege. News industry revenue, meanwhile, has plunged... Google and Facebook command about 60% of all U.S. digital advertising revenue, and have siphoned off billions of dollars that once were the lifeblood of the news media.
Let's be perfectly clear: Journalism's primary revenue source has been hijacked. It's time that news providers are compensated for the journalism they produce. That's why passage of the bipartisan Journalism Competition and Preservation Act is crucial...
Toward that end, "News industry officials, including Atlanta Journal-Constitution Editor Kevin Riley, testified Tuesday on Capitol Hill in favor of legislation they say would help recover advertising revenue lost in recent years to tech behemoths such as Google and Facebook."
The bipartisan bill would provide a four-year reprieve from federal antitrust laws, allowing print and digital publishers to collectively bargain with tech companies about how their content is used -- and what share of ad dollars they'll receive.... Federal antitrust laws bar news organizations from banding together to negotiate more favorable terms from social media and search sites. And individual outlets are deterred from acting alone, according to Chavern's group, because large tech companies could tank a news organization's traffic by demoting or excluding its stories from searches.
The bill's proponents say it could help turn the tide for an industry that's been harmed over the past two decades by declining print subscriptions and ad revenue streams that have dried up and increasingly headed online. As tech sites' share of advertising revenue has grown -- Google's skyrocketed from $3.8 billion in 2005 to $52.4 billion in 2017 -- U.S. newspapers have watched their's nosedive from more than $49 billion to $16.5 billion during the same 12-year period, according to the Pew Research Center.
Let's be perfectly clear: Journalism's primary revenue source has been hijacked. It's time that news providers are compensated for the journalism they produce. That's why passage of the bipartisan Journalism Competition and Preservation Act is crucial...
Toward that end, "News industry officials, including Atlanta Journal-Constitution Editor Kevin Riley, testified Tuesday on Capitol Hill in favor of legislation they say would help recover advertising revenue lost in recent years to tech behemoths such as Google and Facebook."
The bipartisan bill would provide a four-year reprieve from federal antitrust laws, allowing print and digital publishers to collectively bargain with tech companies about how their content is used -- and what share of ad dollars they'll receive.... Federal antitrust laws bar news organizations from banding together to negotiate more favorable terms from social media and search sites. And individual outlets are deterred from acting alone, according to Chavern's group, because large tech companies could tank a news organization's traffic by demoting or excluding its stories from searches.
The bill's proponents say it could help turn the tide for an industry that's been harmed over the past two decades by declining print subscriptions and ad revenue streams that have dried up and increasingly headed online. As tech sites' share of advertising revenue has grown -- Google's skyrocketed from $3.8 billion in 2005 to $52.4 billion in 2017 -- U.S. newspapers have watched their's nosedive from more than $49 billion to $16.5 billion during the same 12-year period, according to the Pew Research Center.
Journalists should learn to code imo (Score:4, Funny)
They tel everyone else to do so
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its not just the "woke" news outlets like Vox that are laying off, as many people think. Its also the "Russia conspiracy" news outlets like CNN.
CNN has completely quit the news business in about 2016. I had great respect for them before: while the commentary was usually biased, at least news themselves were of decent accuracy and not cherry-picked. Everything changed somewhen early during the last US election. Suddenly CNN stopped mentioning any information that could be even slightly unflattering to Hillary, and instead went on an all-out attack on Trump, for all the wrong reasons. There's a lot of to truthfully accuse your current Dear Leader
Re: (Score:2)
Tbh Fox has been doing this for years, I am not surprised the crudeness of Trump has caused the powers at CNN to copy their ultrabias model but flipped for the Democrats.
Instead of one cleaning up, the other descended. Wheeeeee!
Re: (Score:2)
You could say CNN supports the left as they are left of FOX, but I cannot even listen to half of what they put out. I don't mind a republican voice on the show to give some perspective, but they bring on some of the most biased GOP members who rant for 5 or 10 minutes straight in the name of "fairness".
If they were being fair, they would call people on their BS, but if they did no one would come on their show. They just let them speak and it is just garbage, why am I going to listen to that?
Re: (Score:2)
Now that's rich irony (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Now that's rich irony (Score:4)
He is just trying to game the system to give him money without him actually having a worthwhile product. Many people do that and some are even successful.
How do we fix the problems? (Score:2)
When paint rollers were first available, professional painters protested. They didn't want people doing their own painting.
We must somehow move forward in very creative ways.
Re:How do we fix the problems? (Score:5, Insightful)
When paint rollers were first available, professional painters protested. They didn't want people doing their own painting.
Non sequitur.
Journalism is far more important to democracy and society than painting, and the consequences of doing it unprofessionally are far greater.
Yes, I get that the internet lets just about anyone be a journalist, and established media organizations need to adapt to that reality if they want to survive. But good journalism is expensive. It requires expertise, time, and resources. If other tech companies are linking to news stories and not compensating the creators for the privilege, then the news suffers. I think it's a fair topic for discussion.
And now I have to reflect on the irony of saying all of this on slashdot, a site whose sine qua non is the relinking of news stories on other sites.
Re:How do we fix the problems? (Score:5, Insightful)
Journalism is far more important to democracy and society than painting
Not when its failing because of the content produced.
Re:How do we fix the problems? (Score:4, Insightful)
But let's look at why it's failing.
Used to be you would have to buy a newspaper to get more than just some basic TV/radio news. Newspapers were funded by the purchase cost and by adverts. Only the front page needed any clickbait because it was the only part visible on the stand, and even that was limited by the fact that most readers were loyal customers buying for the stuff inside.
Good, expensive journalism was well supported.
Now everyone expects everything for free on the internet. Paywalls are a failed business model outside of specialist publications like the FT. Advertising rates are in the toilet and half the readership blocks them anyway. Rival publications are a click away, and lots of people are using news aggregation sites or social media rather than browsing through just one site.
Alternatives do exist. The Guardian has managed to fund itself with donations and so still manages to do good journalism, e.g. exposing the Windrush scandal.
Re:How do we fix the problems? (Score:5, Insightful)
People would block ads less if they stuck to banner and sidebar ads and stopped with overlays and popups and autoplay.
Go to CNN, click on a video link for a 1 minute video, get a video ad shoved in your face for 30s. Close. Nope, not worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Internet ad rates are so low compared to what they used to get for print that they have turned to these aggressive tactics. Plus they don't do an adequate job of screening for malware or pay compensation when they accidentally distribute it.
Re: How do we fix the problems? (Score:2, Informative)
Then journalists should forget about advertisements and simply charge consumers for content.
If consumers donâ(TM)t want to pay for the content, well, that pretty much indicates what people think the output of journalists is worth.
Market may bear, motherfuckers!
Re: How do we fix the problems? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not paying attention. The issue is that news organizations complain they are being deprived of ad revenue by other tech and social-media sites who re-link to their stories without compensating them, but still collect ad revenue themselves.
Either through subscription fees or through increased prices for goods due to advertising costs, consumers are paying for content. It's just that a large chunk of the revenue does not make it to the content-providers.
Re: How do we fix the problems? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just that a large chunk of the revenue does not make it to the content-providers.
They could start by writing meaningful headlines that actually give me a reason to click on a story. If I see a headline pop up in a Google card that says: "NVIDIA new announcement will AMAZE you." I will happily skip as I don't want to potentially waste my time clicking on a bullshit article. And the big news organisations aren't immune from clickbait crap.
Ironically if you want me to click through the site, don't write a click bait headline, but rather go back to writing headlines the way it was taught in English classes 40 years ago and TELL people the most important point of your story in the headline.
It would also help if actual websites on mobile actually showed content. You get far more content on your screen in a single google card than say CNN's mobile site where you click in: advertisement at the top, advertisement at the bottom, auto-playing video taking up 2/3rds of the screen, and look you can't even display the article headline anymore without forcing the user to scroll.
Speaking of headlines, here's a better one for this Slashdot story:
"Industry that shat its own bed complains of smell, wants government to come change the sheets."
Re: (Score:2)
That's always been the case though. One newspaper spends a large amount of time and money developing a story, and as soon as it's published the others all do their own write ups with a brief mention of where it originated from.
Re:How do we fix the problems? (Score:5, Insightful)
In many cases, Facebook and Google are sending more people to the news sites. This should be driving more ad impressions for the news sites and getting them more ad revenue.
However, where many news organizations fail to capitalize on this and online revenue in general (which is often still more than they get from print ads/ota commercials) is the news sites rely on outside ad companies.
Users block those ad companies across the board, the ad companies take a share of the ad revenue, and deliver ads that are often not at all relevant to reader.
The biggest revenue hit for papers was the rise of sites like Craig's List, providing a free alternative to the classifieds which were a big source of income for local papers.
Beyond all that, the consolidation of papers, delivery and logistical issues, and basic corporate greed have taken their toll.
Re: (Score:2)
"Journalism is far more important to democracy and society than painting, and the consequences of doing it unprofessionally are far greater."
Not to mention that painters can be very bad for democracy, especially Austrian ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When paint rollers were first available, professional painters protested. They didn't want people doing their own painting.
Non sequitur.
Journalism is far more important to democracy and society than painting, and the consequences of doing it unprofessionally are far greater.
No accurate reporting is far more important to democracy Journalist are not reporters and express opinions and try to push a point many of them are activists who think they should use their job to push their pet project e.g. "climate change" instead of beings the Reporters of the past would fact check the sources as their reputation was important. Journalists rely on the news cycle dumping their story for the next one before the sketchy facts are checked
Re: (Score:2)
Why was this downvoted? It's 100% spot on. Almost all the national news channels are busy telling me how to feel about events instead of just reporting the events.
The best you can do is read articles about the same event from multiple sources and try and shuffle through the bias.
Sadly, the idea that someone's political beliefs translates into social responsibility is downright scary, but definitely happening. Two major examples of people letting their personal beliefs screw up otherwise normal business is t
Re: (Score:2)
When paint rollers were first available, professional painters protested. They didn't want people doing their own painting.
People have been doing their own painting for centuries before the paint roller was invented, dude. Don't make stuff up.
Re: (Score:3)
The "former editor-in-chief" of USA Today, you know, the first NATIONAL newspaper, the one that helped drive many of the small-town newspapers out of business, (and lowered journalistic standards by an order of magnitude or two) is bitching about how newspapers can't make any money. Cry me a river.
Reminds me of large chain drug stores like CVS driving mom and pop drug stores out of business because they negotiated better drug price deals, and now, 30 years later are being killed by Walmart and big chain supermarkets.
Literacy tests have already been tried (Score:2)
> We need to make an informed populous a requirement for being
> a citizen, or at least bias towards it. Maybe reduce taxes for
> people who pass a test with objective questions on current events.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] It did not work out well
I stopped caring about Journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
These days I get my news from a handful of YouTube sites like The Young Turks, Secular Talk, and sometimes the BBC. Everything I see in establishment media I take with a cow's lick worth of salt.
Re:I stopped caring about Journalism (Score:4, Informative)
Racist Armenian Holocaust deniers named after a group that perpetrated a genocide, the founder of the group that brought us congresswomen who quote nazis, and the most establishment of establishment news media.
Which Congresswomen? (Score:2, Interesting)
As for the Armenian Genocide, Cenk Uygur [tyt.com] recanted 3 years ago. Better late then never, and I don't mind them using the name if that's what bothers you.
Finally, Uygur had a nice gig going with MSNBC as their token lefty (the MSNBC equivalent to Alan Combs) and walked away from it in the wake of their media blackout on Bernie Sanders. I'm not sure I coulda said no to a nice big steady paycheck like that. Journalism's a t
Re: (Score:2)
I never heard that Cenk recanted his genocide denial or that he walked away from MSNBC after seeing their bias up close. Despite being hardcore right, my opinion of him has just improved a little.
No small feat, as i'm ethnic Greek...
My only concern about Cenk (Score:2)
Then again I don't know his history. He might have Just not thought much about it in the intervening years. It came up mostly because of the name he choose.
Re: (Score:2)
CNN is well behind Fox News in ratings, and arguably behind MSNBC now. How well would they be doing if people had to pay them $10/month?
I can't blame them for evening opinion shows that are non-stop tearing at Trump, given Fox does the opposite and tears at Democrats, but that it falters in the ratings is telling.
Re:I stopped caring about Journalism (Score:5, Interesting)
Where's the muck racking?
Well this one is not making the Zuck look good [wsj.com].
Why the hell should I pay any attention to CNN & MSNBC
Read print not that.
Re: I stopped caring about Journalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I stopped caring about Journalism (Score:5, Interesting)
What happened to exposing the powerful and rocking the establishment boat? Why the hell should I pay any attention to CNN & MSNBC when they're busy getting me into pointless wars and publishing corporate memos verbatim like they were news.
I'm sorry rsilvergun, but you've lost me here. MSNBC for one seems to have lots of commentators who expose the powerful and rock the establishment boat. Perhaps somewhat less on CNN, but they're there.
And what "pointless wars" are you talking about? The only pointless war in recent memory is the Iraq war, started not by CNN and MSNBC, but by faulty intel put forward by the CIA under the George W. Bush administration.
Citation needed (Score:5, Insightful)
They were there to help sell the bail outs. They continue to turn a blind eye to the shit storm in Yemen and again, ran the party line on Venezuela (which thanks to a YouTube channel called Status Coup I now know is more nuanced than "Everybody want Maduro gone").
Oh, and let's now forget that it's come out they did a press blackout on Bernie Sanders to ensure Hilary got the nomination.
MSNBC is the Democratic Party Establishment's propaganda arm. If this was just a game I wouldn't care, but there's a lot riding on the next election. I've got friends and family who's lives would be changed for the better if we had Single Payer Healthcare. Not "a little better" but "not going to die of insulin shock from untreated Type-I" diabetes better. Meanwhile I've got these schmucks who are far right on everything economic that get a pass because they stopped opposing gay marriage around 2009 when the public's minds changed.
MSNBC, CNN and Fox news are all exactly the same. They're there to keep the rich rich. Sorry if I sound harsh, but this is a harsh fucking world and it's those fuckers that're keeping it that way.
Re:Citation needed (Score:5, Informative)
MSNBC was right there to get us into the Iraq war and ran the party line on that Japanese tanker who's owner came right out and said "No, it wasn't mines".
Yeah, I remember when they got Noam Chomsky on the air, interviewed him and really harassed him for being opposed to the Iraq war. Chomsky held his ground. I've never admired that man more than at that moment (and I've admired him for a lot of things).
Re: (Score:2)
MSNBC was right there to get us into the Iraq war and ran the party line on that Japanese tanker who's owner came right out and said "No, it wasn't mines".
Yeah, I remember when they got Noam Chomsky on the air, interviewed him and really harassed him for being opposed to the Iraq war. Chomsky held his ground. I've never admired that man more than at that moment (and I've admired him for a lot of things).
I didn't appreciate Chomsky grammar at college, but 30 years of engineering later, I'm impressed with its utility and the guy who invented it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As someone who has a double major degree in Journalism and Poli-sci, let me say - you're not wrong.
I'm on the opposite side of the political spectrum, and so naturally I interpret the same events totally differently - for instance, this "japanese tanker" business. Every outlet running headlines screaming "Japanese Tanker crew testimony contradicts US claims of limpet mines" is effectively shilling for Iran's murderous theocratic regime, as limpet mines and "flying objects" are not mutually exclusive (RPGs a
You don't have to be a genius (Score:3)
Trump has done nothing to harm the establishment. His tariffs are a minor nussance, that's all. And he's bro
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And what "pointless wars" are you talking about? The only pointless war in recent memory is the Iraq war
Well, you better take some extra Alzheimer's medication.
The U.S. has not been involved in one legitimate, necessary, military action since the end of World War II. None. Zero. It has all been complete bullshit that has caused more harm than good and has done nothing except pump trillions in the pockets of defense contractors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems more like the much-racking is out of control. Look at all the BS printed about politicians these days. It's got to the point where the only ones who can rise above it are the ones who run on a platform of "yes, I'm a liar and a cheat and a failure, but at least I tell you what you want to hear!"
Re: (Score:2)
You have to goto the comedy shows now for the muck racking and otherwise speaking truth to power. John Oliver's show: Last Week Tonight, in particular, does old-school deep-dive investigative journalism in a way I've not seen since 1990s-era 60 Minutes. He just throws in some humor to go with it. But he actually manages to make things like net neutrality entertaining and engaging. And as important as net neutrality is; I do have to agree with Oliver that the discussion on it is otherwise objectively bo
Craigslist made their revenue evaporate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Craigslist made their revenue evaporate (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, some people don’t realize that, for decades, classified ads provided the bulk of most newspapers’ revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Which brings up the question of how Craigslist finances themselves? I don't see a business model but I've never advertised on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of their listings cost money.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, simple answer which makes sense
Journalism vs. Editorials (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What if Hillary had won? Would CNN have gone on destroying itself afterwards? Probably not. Their faux "prediction" would have come true, the consumers of the bullshit would have been none-the-wiser that it was, in fact, bullshit. But instead Trump won and right away people were outraged that these news outlets "got it so wrong" so they doubled down on the bu
they let their revenue get away (Score:5, Interesting)
25 years ago all the big newspapers made money from classifieds, job ads and real estate listings. The internet came along and they acted all snobby and let someone steal their revenue and now they are crying how they can't make money.
Re: they let their revenue get away (Score:4)
Pretty much.
Same for people who bitch about Amazon. Sears SHOULD have been Amazon. They just had no fucking vision.
Same with Polaroid. Oops!!
Same with Kodak. Oops!!
At least Nikon figures it out.
As for newspapers....most newspapers (say, any local paper not in a bonafide âoebig cityâ) should have folded its print operations a long time ago.
Re: they let their revenue get away (Score:5, Insightful)
Sears was the Amazon of snail mail back in the day. I'm old enough to remember how excited my parents were when the new Sears catalog showed up in the mail. You could order anything out of the catalog and the mailman would show up with it four to six weeks later. That was before shopping malls and big box stores popped up everywhere.
The real problem with Sears was being bought out by a hedge fund, loaded up with debt, and run into the ground. Only a hedge fund would think owning Sears and K-Mart under the same business was a good idea.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hey, that hedge fund made a lot of money while killing Sears. Who cares about the employees pensions when there's people who need another yacht.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same with Kodak. Oops!!
At least Nikon figures it out.
This is actually a bit of a different story. Kodak actively destroyed itself while promoting the competitor. They developed a digital sensor and all their demonstrations bolted them in Nikon bodies. Simultaneously they obsoleted their main revenue source while cementing the reputation of an indirect competitor in the consumers minds as "the future".
The newspaper industry let the world pass by, Kodak actively pushed the world ahead while chosing to remain behind.
Re: (Score:2)
They've got a pretty large chunk of the high-end digital camera market these days. It's mostly them and Canon; Canon is admittedly doing better, but Nikon is number 2 and far ahead of any other competitors.
Re: they let their revenue get away (Score:2)
Nixon died a long time ago.
They think they have a right to revenue? (Score:5, Insightful)
They must have misunderstood capitalism on a pretty fundamental level.
Re: (Score:3)
They must have misunderstood capitalism on a pretty fundamental level.
There's more to life than capitalism. A free and independent press is necessary for a functioning democracy. These things cost money.
Re: (Score:2)
And you get an independent press by getting the government to shut down any competition, right?
Re: (Score:2)
And you get an independent press by getting the government to shut down any competition, right?
That all depends on if they do anything about fishing rights.
I figured I'd answer one non sequitur with another.
Re: (Score:2)
Both are vital to the advantages of living in a free society. Capitalism, derivative of freedom, provides the econonomic might to stock shelves and invent things, and the tax base for amelioration of its own rough edges, and speech via journalism keeps everything in line.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems you have a conundrum.
Re: (Score:2)
Making a better product so that more people want to buy it is so last century. The game now is to bribe... I mean lobby... politicians to outlaw any competition, or legally mandate your product.
This is done through such things as ever extending, and ever more draconian copyrights and patents. This is done through increased regulatory burden on many industries making it harder for new entrants to navigate the beuraucracy. This is done through taxing new technolo
Re: (Score:2)
That is not capitalism. That is the corrupt actual implementation with its strongly anti-competitive characteristics and perverted incentives.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they don't "misunderstand" capitalism. They think capitalism is evil, and that they should be entitled to whatever money they want because they are doing such noble work. They would prefer that capitalism become illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
How much of a copyrighted news story should Google be able to reproduce without paying the author?
Google was well down the road to indexing all books when book publishers fought back.
Collective Bargaining?! (Score:2)
Perish the thought!
What about local news? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What about local news? (Score:5, Informative)
Canadian news used to be better about local stories. The problem is that PostMedia has bought everything, and so everything is done at a central location (to keep costs low) and sent back out. So for instance, the Edmonton Journal used to be such an Edmonton institution that they partly owned the Oilers for a time; they had enough spare money for that. They had a significant local presence and did excellent reporting.
PostMedia owns them now, which means the Edmonton Journal has exactly the same stories as all the other papers in Canada, and very little local news. The opinions are slanted to favour the editorial position of PostMedia and fewer and fewer people care to read the same bland stuff they can get online from better sources. Unsurprisingly, this also means that PostMedia is heavily in debt and canâ(TM)t recover from buying all the newspapers across Canada. Because everything is the same, they have no value proposition. Why would I read their world or national news when I can go to the Guardian and get better coverage?
Now the Canadian government is establishing a fund to prop up news organizations here, but that really just means corporate welfare for PostMedia. They should be allowed to die. They have a strong right-leaning bent, so they should welcome the inevitability of capitalism, and allow local news to re-establish itself, but of course they plan to take that money and run because the owners donâ(TM)t actually give two shits about capitalism.
Anyway, long story short, a lot of these news organizations have sowed the seeds of their own demise and they should be allowed to die. I have no sympathy for the hyper-capitalist right-wing tools that have been destroying our news institutions for years. We may as well let them die and start over with a more level playing field.
Re: (Score:2)
Real journalists are doing fine... (Score:4, Interesting)
there just aren't very many real journalists left. All of the major news outlets in the US are so bad it should be considered criminal. I think if we let the whole 'industry' die, something better will rise out of the ashes. It really cannot get any worse than it is. It takes a truly evil person to be a gatekeeper of the truth who the masses rely on - and use that to tell half-truths, propaganda, leave out common knowledge, and outright lie.
The only people in society I like are the ones that are sick of the bullshit that others call news.
Re: Real journalists are doing fine... (Score:2)
Since news media went online... (Score:3)
The number of advertisements grew hugely, and actual content (news) shrank.
The âoeimmediacyâ of the internet suckered them into trying to a) get content from wherever as fast as possible, and b) got them to go on a publish or perish vicious cycle, where they publish anything because they feel they have to to âoekeep up.â
Odd side effects of this have been rapidly shrinking numbers of actual news gatherers, these being replaced by opinion writers.
Itâ(TM)s thought of as too hard, and not that interesting (leading to less page clicks) to just report what happened, where and when it happened and if people were involved who did what.
So, itâ(TM)s pretty much all devolved to agreed narratives with screeds of sycophantic opinion pieces.
Honestly, the apocalypse could actually be happening and youâ(TM)re more likely to find the media talking about how it might affect the Kardashians as itâ(TM)s focus.
News Papers no longer contain news (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you read some actual newspapers rather than tabloids. You seem to be describing the Daily Mail quite well.
Re: (Score:2)
I subscribe to, and read, the Washington Post (although I am not particularly liberal). Yes, I can hear your eyes rolling from here, but I have to say that I have never seen the A section (front page, general news) ever contain "diet suggestions, agony columns, food recipe pages" and rarely sports. (If I did see such things on the front page, I would probably stop reading it)
The News Industry (Score:5, Insightful)
The " News " Industry is a certifiable joke.
They quit reporting on the " News " long, long ago. It's now a sensationalist cesspool with an obvious political bias the flavor of which depends upon which dumpster fire we're referring to. The fact they're complaining about revenue is the biggest evidence there is that they're not interested in delivering factual based content, but rather anything that generates more money. ( Which is how we got to where we are today. )
Here, allow me to help.
Your JOB is to deliver / report upon verifiable facts heretofore known as NEWS. The moment that idea got lost and you started reporting on rumors and gossip instead, you ceased being the news and became nothing more than a broadcast version of a tabloid.
The news is not the place for any of the following:
The never-ending op-ed hit piece against whatever political party your CEO loathes.
The GD Kardashians. ( or any celebrity or politician for that matter )
And definitely not the rest of the silly eye-rolling trash that seems to be the market standard.
You get long term viewers eyes by gaining their respect. Be factual, be truthful and drop all the tabloid bullshit and you'll recover.
Keep up the stupidity and you'll simply cease to be at all.
That is all.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of players who do what you want. You sound like you're talking about the usual nutjobs like the Daily Mail and similar pointless sensationalist tabloid shit, and then calling it the "news industry".
We still have to many media companies (Score:2)
Please explain... (Score:3)
Also, one of the links (for the word "plunged") is about how *circulation* (not online access) has plunged, but then the same article has a graph showing "Newspapers' circulation revenue climbs steadily even as advertising declines" -- so....wtf? "Climbs steadily" sounds pretty good, huh?
I'd welcome any replies to help make sense of...any of this.
Re: (Score:2)
- The New York Times publishes a story.
- Some other "news" sites read that original story and paraphrase it to publish their own, hopefully with a link back to the NYT article.
- Google/Facebook/etc give links to all sites with versions of that story. Too many people click the second-hand sites giving ad revenue to those sites, but not to the site that actually
LMAO (Score:5, Insightful)
Half of the news now is reporting on "reactions" to news events. The actual news events themselves are more often reported by eyewitnesses on their social media accounts, which go viral, and THEN the journalists pick up the story. The distributed system of current events reporting is already here.
That's one side of it... (Score:2)
There are tons of situations where a journalist has special contacts and networking that helps them both break a story, and yes, react to it by either corroborating or validating or offering context. They often have access to experts in relevant areas, are familiar with the history of what they're covering, and have a good instinct for how to follow up and what questions to raise.
Reading a tweet is great if you can somehow get all the rest of that stuff too but most people won't know what to make of it.
Nothing new (Score:2)
Now we know why (Score:2)
I'm sorry, what was that? (Score:2)
I was busy smashing this automated loom.
A surprisingly balanced suggestion! (Score:2)
That's a lot more sensible than the EU's recent attempt to 'solve' the problem with a link tax.
Google/Facebook still have every right to say 'we don't like your deal',Individual newspapers still have every right to say 'We'll do our own deal thank you'
This seems
Not to mention (Score:5, Insightful)
When things started getting tight, newspapers fired all the local reporters reporting local news in order to run AP stories. The deal with that is, you can get AP stories at every online outlet. Well, if I can get AP stories from, you know, the AP, I don't need a local paper. That was a Wall Street move to increase short term profits that just happened to blow up in their faces IN THE LONG HAUL. Imagine that.
News industry forgot what people want (Score:2)
Go to any newspaper, magazine, or TV Web site. What will you see? Hundreds of ads with a story sprinkled in here or there. And the stories aren't even good quality. They are hard to read because they are interspersed with...more ads that auto-play and jump out at you.
Meanwhile, Google News does a great job of showing you what you want to see, with minimal advertising. And...you're not locked in to a single news outlet, so you get better quality content.
I say the news industry did themselves in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Censoring didn't work, so mandatory government speech will fix it!
This in a country that was occupied in living memory by thugs who find those government powers a highly useful tool.
Re: (Score:2)
How is a decent guy supposed to find a sweet bargain anymore?
I want to say one word to you. Just one word. Mr. McGuire: There's a great future in plastics.
Re: (Score:2)
They treated it like a joke but he was right.
Re: (Score:2)
Watch Citizen Kane if you think this is a new issue, or is even a newly-known problem with journalism.
"Tell him, 'You provide the pictures; I'll provide the war.' ", semi-cryptically about Hearst.
Re:GOOGLE & FB LEECHING NEWS OUTLETS!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
They need to decide which one they want. Either, they have their stuff appear on Google, OR they hope people will come to them for it. Google has proven in the past that if they have to pay for content from a media outlet, they'll simply drop that source, and that is their right to do. What they want is to force another company to distribute their product for them, and then pay for the privelidge. That's not how the world works. If they truly believe that their content is valuable enough to be paid for, then start charging for it! If it really is that valuable, people will pay for it. If they don't, then it obviously wasn't as valuable as they thought.
A product's worth is determined not by the cost to produce, nor by the profit desired by the producer. A product's only true worth is what others are willing to pay for it.