I think he is talking about us

Paul Kelly in the Australian has a long piece claiming victory for Australia in the government v Facebook and Google kerfuffle.

I particularly liked this bit:

But there is a small group of angry critics that reject the model on the grounds of media diversity, insist small players will miss out, claim Facebook won the main concessions and complain that the big companies, notably News Corp, are getting what they want. Such critics have an extremely limited and selective view of how to assist journalism and what journalism should be assisted.

Let’s ignore the concession that this was really an industry protection policy and get to the rub.

I do not think that journalism should be ‘assisted’ at all. For any reason or at any time. If you cannot survive in the market, you fail. That is how the world is supposed to work.

This entry was posted in #IstandwithFacebook, Shut it down. Fire them all., Taking out the trash. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to I think he is talking about us

  1. Entropy says:

    What does feacesbook think?

    After further discussions, we are satisfied that the Australian government has agreed to a number of changes and guarantees that address our core concerns about allowing commercial deals that recognize the value our platform provides to publishers relative to the value we receive from them,” Facebook’s VP of global news partnerships, Campbell Brown, said in a statement.

    The MSM got nuthin.

  2. Roger says:

    Such critics have an extremely limited and selective view of how to assist journalism and what journalism should be assisted.

    Shouldn’t the first question be why should journalism be “assisted”?

  3. miltonf says:

    Kelly and newscorpse can fuck off.

  4. Baa Humbug says:

    Such critics have an extremely limited and selective view of how to assist journalism and what journalism should be assisted.

    And right there Kelly reveals his shallow intellect.
    The man admits in writing that journalism needs government support.
    Way to infantilise ones own profession.

  5. miltonf says:

    Feacesbook- ha ha very apt. Just creeps vs creeps.

  6. Bazinga says:

    The pinkos have very different values to normal hardworking folk.

  7. miltonf says:

    what journalism should be assisted

    yes what does he actually mean by that? Left wing? Right wing? People with BAs in communications?

  8. Karabar says:

    “I do not think that journalism should be ‘assisted’ at all. For any reason or at any time. If you cannot survive in the market, you fail. That is how the world is supposed to work.”
    Amen.

  9. H B Bear says:

    Paul Kelly. Never knowingly right on anything.

  10. egg_ says:

    The pinkos have very different values to normal hardworking folk.

    Champagne socialists inside the bubble.

  11. H B Bear says:

    Assisted is something you do to little old ladies near busy streets, not billionaires with New York penthouses.

  12. egg_ says:

    Paul Kelly. Never knowingly right on anything.

    Makes van Wrongsolong look good.

  13. H B Bear says:

    Fuck these modern day candlestick makers.

  14. H B Bear says:

    I’m looking at replacing my mobile phone which is on deaths door. New ones are twice as good and half the price. That’s progress.

  15. Ian of Brisbane says:

    We alreadt have assisted journalism, its called the ABC.

  16. Graham says:

    Can I be assisted too, please?

  17. Albatross says:

    Thanks Libs! Another resounding success!

  18. duncanm says:

    Assist journalism.

    What, are they artists now ?

  19. jupes says:

    Paul Kelly. Never knowingly right on anything.

    Not true.

    He once wrote a fantastic column on George Pell. Unfortunately the dickhead didn’t take my advice and retire on a winning note.

  20. C.L. says:

    Meanwhile, Dennis Shanahan’s piece in the Weekend Aust. is basically a Dutton press release on how the home affairs minister MUST have encryption-breaking keys handed to him IMMEDIATELY by evil Facebook to stop Da Pedda Files.

    An absolutely shameful column.

  21. BrettW says:

    Based on the number and nature of threads about this one might get the feeling Sinc and CL are on the side of big tech against traditional newspapers.

    People choose to pay for newspapers or subscribe to their pages. Ok some express irritation that their comments are not approved.

    Facebook, Google and Twitter usage are free. That is because they use your data to for advertising etc. One stat mentioned recently that Google has 53% of the Australian advertising market and FB 28%. As we know the big techs have very high turnover with very little tax paid. Obviously not illegal. Just like Amazon. However how many jobs and commercial rents etc. within Australia do those large %ages contribute to. I would think very little compared to on the ground paper publications operating within Australia.

    When I decide whose side I am on I am factoring things like :

    FB changing the algorithms to affect the spread of the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to election. Twitter suspended account of NY Post, for 2 weeks, following its Hunter Biden article.

    FB cutting off the live streaming by Steven Crowder on US election day when he had 15 million watching live. No explanation given. As he says he has spent lots of money over the years growing his FB followers.

    Crowder a few days ago had a segment on his Youtube show where he proved 100% that some addresses (he says there were hundreds they checked) used be voters in Las Vegas were false as no such address (ie. address had no such number or is a vacant lot or even a highway). Prior to sending somebody to the physical locations they had checked the addresses via Google Earth and a asking a courier company if could deliver to those addresses. He went to great pains to point out not saying changed the election but that perhaps some checking was in order. Twitter again suspended his account.

    Twitter banning President Trump.

    Google altered the search results so that Tulsi Gabbard was hard to find after she performed very well in the first Dems candidates debate. However when same search done outside US done she was much easier to find. Saw Tulsi herself say that after first debate Google cancelled her Google Ads campaign and to this day never explained why.

    Multiple examples of conservative social media platforms being demonetized, cancelled or suspended. Parler being shut down despite those being arrested for events at the Capitol using FB, Instagram etc far more to communicate.

    To those constantly complaining about The Australian consider what would happen if Newscorp ceased to exist overnight. No The Oz, no Fox News. Or leftie Lachlan takes over.

    Carry on because The Australian needs to be put in its place and we have only had 5 such threads mocking them so far (sarc).

  22. H B Bear says:

    Shanahan runs hot and cold. A 50:50 prospect at best.

  23. MACK says:

    The mainstream media would do much better if they replaced lots of their journalists with reporters. They’re meant to ask Who What When Where & Why but too many forget the Why, especially when asking politicians about Covid policies.

  24. C.L. says:

    I’m not on the side of BT or News Corp.

    What I despised about the government/News Corp campaign re Facebook, however, was the ridiculous dishonesty. Depriving people of news and emergency information (untrue); profiting from media copy (rather than the other way ’round) etc.

    Now that the government and News Corp have primed the public with misinformation, the real agenda emerges: Dutton wants to eavesdrop on Australians. ASIO is putting him up to this (not that he needs much convincing) and they daren’t mention Islamic terrorism. So they’ve decided to go with pedda files.

    Let us read your mail or you’re a defender of child molesters.

    Is News Corp our only media friend, as you say? Yes, probably.
    Does that mean they should get a pass for this sort of grotesque propaganda? No.

  25. H B Bear says:

    Mack – I think that approach died some time ago. It ain’t coming back.

    In considering newspapers v Big Tech, newspapers are fairly transparent. You are told when you are reading Mavis or Prof van Wrongselen. Algorithms are completely hidden. You might find out they changed them on you after a few weeks. Then Zuck says trust us.

  26. twostix says:

    Something very seedy about The Australian ‘Breaking News’ emails in my inbox which suddenly look like an awful lot like government press releases.

    “‘Myth busters’ join anti-vaxxer crackdown ”
    “Concerns anti-vaxxers will try to disrupt jab rollout”

    This stuff is all complete fantasy from the minds of the lunatics at ASIO / AFP of course to provide additional foundation for the ongoing assault on private communications the Liberals are waging on their behalf that CL mentions above.

  27. Albatross says:

    BrettW says:
    February 28, 2021 at 5:41 pm
    […]
    People choose to pay for newspapers or subscribe to their pages.

    Not any more. They’re cross-subsidised by another business. But only the ones that entered into a commercial agreement with Facebook and share their values. They’re sure to be frank and fearless in their criticism of their new business partner in future though…

  28. Ken S says:

    I agree with Sinc on the principles. When a newspaper runs an article on a new shopping centre and mentions a new restaurant, driving traffic to that business, and is happy to pay that restaurant for the referral then I will believe they are not just unprincipled rent seekers.

    Sure, we see market power supporting partisan politics, crony socialism, evil and corruption running rampant and portends that it could get worse. But is extortion the best line of attack that our supposedly liberal conservative government can make ?

  29. notafan says:

    If it makes kevni angwy I’m all for it.

  30. Mother Lode says:

    Paul Kelly has a vested interest in the Spacechook/Mesozoic media. He fights either blind to this, or trusting his readers will not hold him to it.

    Doesn’t matter once you know.

    Traditionally journos were a gadfly, stinging the high and mighty just when they were trying to appear their most commanding, magisterial, and awe inspiring.

    It is a fond conceit of j’ismists, but not a convincing one.

    The MSM are no gadflies, but instead a pointed stick in the mouth of the dog that is wagged by a tail held by numerous and interconnected interests.

  31. faceache says:

    It won’t be Lachlan so much. It’ll be the Missus.

  32. BrettW says:

    I am sorry but this does not make sense. Why should restaurant get payment if mentioned by a paper ?. FB and Google dont pay restaurants when they get mentioned either.

    I read Courier Mail which often has lists of restaurants in various categories.
    They are currently putting one together on pizza places.

    Recently CM had an article listing best restaurants in various categories. I was surprised the top for American style food was located near where I live but had never known of its existence. Went along 2 days later and the food was great and good value. However they were not even aware they had been listed.

    Ken S says:
    February 28, 2021 at 6:57 pm
    I agree with Sinc on the principles. When a newspaper runs an article on a new shopping centre and mentions a new restaurant, driving traffic to that business, and is happy to pay that restaurant for the referral then I will believe they are not just unprincipled rent seekers.

  33. stackja says:

    Facebook doesn’t create anything. It only uses people.

  34. Gorilla Dance Party says:

    Facebook got a mild tax increase so they won however the media want to spin it. Remember, this is one of many companies that regularly pays out millions in fines to the EU and writes it off as a business expense. This whole thing was a joke.

    As always, a plague on both their houses.

  35. Albatross says:

    BrettW says:
    February 28, 2021 at 7:16 pm
    I am sorry but this does not make sense. Why should restaurant get payment if mentioned by a paper ?

    Exactly.

  36. Entropy says:

    Not only exactly, but it does demonstrate what News Corp tried on. Get mentioned on feacesbook, faecebook pays News Corp.

  37. Entropy says:

    All that was needed is for feacesbook to require a link, and don’t let more than the first paragraph be
    Ostend..

  38. Ken S says:

    ” … I am sorry but this does not make sense. Why should restaurant get payment if mentioned by a paper ? ”
    Exactly. Why should they indeed ! Of course they shouldn’t. Just as the newspaper shouldn’t get paid when some search engine or posting points to an internet-visible news item. That was the point being made. To force either under government edict is extortion.

  39. Ken S says:

    Thanks Entropy – you explained it.

  40. jupes says:

    To those constantly complaining about The Australian consider what would happen if Newscorp ceased to exist overnight. No The Oz, no Fox News. Or leftie Lachlan takes over.

    That is the same as voting Liberal because Labor is worse.

    No. Fuck them both.

    Subscribe to Quadrant.

  41. Tel says:

    I do not think that journalism should be ‘assisted’ at all. For any reason or at any time.

    Government advertising budgets might provide a bit of ‘assist’, here and there.

    Terribly shame if one badly written article put all that at risk … I mean honestly!!

  42. NoFixedAddress says:

    Sinclair

    Does their ABC ‘enjoy’ the fruit of this poison pill?

  43. BalancedObservation2 says:

    Any fair reading of the media bargaining code legislation will show it’s an inept, almost farcical, draconian, attempted – ultimately ineffective – shakedown of Facebook and Google – not an intervention in the market to improve journalism. There’s not a word in the legislation to ensure even a cent goes towards improving journalism.

    And Sinclair is right – news organizations should be able to survive in the market without the power of the state being wielded for them by an accommodating government.
    Especially when those news organizations are clearly majority-foreign-owned and have a near monopoly hold on news coverage in the country.

    Why has it been an ineffective shakedown? Nine got $30 million from Google via the shakedown and its revenue is over $1 billion. In the end it was pretty cheap protection money paid by Google. Peter Costello, Nine Chairman, had been reported as saying $600 million should be put into a fund for the media. Newscorp felt over a billion. Nine which runs a large slice of the media in this country got $30 million from Google. A very meagre shakedown at best.

    The government has only achieved one thing with the legislation – it’s driven Facebook and Google into apparently secret deals with our near monopoly majority-foreign-owned local media. That’s going to do absolutely nothing for media diversity. Quite the reverse.

    And the campaign for the code, spearheaded ( in their own words) by the near monopoly local media has exposed the poor quality of journalism in this country. Unsurprisingly with a clear vested interest in the issue – rather than reporting the issue objectively our local media havn’t surprised anyone – they’ve spent an inordinate amount of their time actually attacking Facebook and Google over things the government hasn’t even claimed the media code will fix.

  44. BalancedObservation2 says:

    I might have been a little unfair in saying the code has only achieved one thing. It also seems to have united the Coalition, Labor and even the Greens on a single issue.

    In such circumstances – if the issue isn’t motherhood – you should smell a rat.

    What it does show – even if our near monopoly local media is going out backwards financially, they still wield a hell of a lot of political clout. Their shareholders must be thinking if only they could monetize that clout effectively. Fortunately they seem too inept for that.

  45. Beertruk says:

    Subscribe to Quadrant.

    I don’t subscribe per sey to Quadrant, but the local newsagency puts away a copy for me everytime a new issue comes out.
    I have racked up a few years worth of issues.

  46. BalancedObservation2 says:

    Beertruk

    I’ve only just cancelled my subscriptions to Fairfax and Newscorp ( I liked to get both sides) so I might re-invest, perhaps like you do in Quadrant. I used to read Quadrant in more ancient times. Might be interesting to resume.

    There’s plenty of free news as well for the footy and other local stuff. Won’t miss subscribing to the media near monopolies, and now I hate the idea of my subsidizing them in any way.

Comments are closed.