The first is that it perpetuates the clickbait bs attention grabbing that is the bane of actual information flow. This is the opposite of what we want if newspapers are to fulfil their hoped for role in public discourse (to inform). But most of these models reward it.
The second is the idea that Google is "stealing" news. One of the core issues with news is that you cannot copywrite it. When Greenwald broke the Snowden revelations, it was the result of months of hard work and investment by him, the Guardian and the Washington Post. They took significant risks, both commercially and physically. They worked through 1000s of documents, checked and double checked, talked to other sources and prepared expensive legal teams. Then hours later ever other paper on earth started printing the same news for free and selling it. How is that any different to Google etc putting ads against search.
I don't know what the right model is for newspapers. But so far the only commercially viable one has been to rip off other people's actual investigatuve journalism, water it down by pandering to readers' prejudices and then sell political influence based on being able to sway readers votes.
These changes will at best just continue and entrench that model. We need a whole new playing field.
Plus as a bonus, when x% of your revenue comes from Google etc, it's suddenly a lot harder to criticise Google etc. I suspect, cynically, that's the real aim here: open your pocket book and we'll put down our pens (not the first time that's happened...).
Agreed, having Google pay the media seems like it would only make the incentives even more slanted towards encouraging clickbait and "stealing" content. I am not sure what the solution is but it is not this.
Allow biases but penalize the publication of misinformation after the fact. Publishers producing informative content might emerge as the breadwinners and the propagandists will lose revenue.
The first is that it perpetuates the clickbait bs attention grabbing that is the bane of actual information flow. This is the opposite of what we want if newspapers are to fulfil their hoped for role in public discourse (to inform). But most of these models reward it.
The second is the idea that Google is "stealing" news. One of the core issues with news is that you cannot copywrite it. When Greenwald broke the Snowden revelations, it was the result of months of hard work and investment by him, the Guardian and the Washington Post. They took significant risks, both commercially and physically. They worked through 1000s of documents, checked and double checked, talked to other sources and prepared expensive legal teams. Then hours later ever other paper on earth started printing the same news for free and selling it. How is that any different to Google etc putting ads against search.
I don't know what the right model is for newspapers. But so far the only commercially viable one has been to rip off other people's actual investigatuve journalism, water it down by pandering to readers' prejudices and then sell political influence based on being able to sway readers votes.
These changes will at best just continue and entrench that model. We need a whole new playing field.
Plus as a bonus, when x% of your revenue comes from Google etc, it's suddenly a lot harder to criticise Google etc. I suspect, cynically, that's the real aim here: open your pocket book and we'll put down our pens (not the first time that's happened...).