Facebook profited from the decline of Australia's news organisations, but enforcing the News Media Bargaining Code will make a bad situation worse without solving the problem of who will pay for the news.

Try and get past the fact that this is sort-of about Facebook. Because it’s more about the demise of news than it is about Facebook, specifically.

news organisations were never in the news business, Amanda Lotz, a professor of media studies at QUT, said.

"They were in the attention-attraction business.

"In another era, if you were an advertiser, a newspaper was a great place to be.

“But now there are just much better places to be.”

The moment news moved online, and was “unbundled” from classifieds, sports results, movie listings, weather reports, celebrity gossip, and all the other reasons people bought newspapers or watched evening TV bulletins, the news business model was dead.

News by itself was never profitable, Professor Bruns said.

"Then advertising moved somewhere else.

“This was always going to happen via Facebook or other platforms.”

It’s a really fascinating read. We can all agree that independent journalism is valuable in our society, but ultimately, most of us don’t so much seek news out as much as we encounter news as we go about our day.

I’m sure the TL;DR bot is about to entirely miss the nuance of the article. I recommend reading the whole thing.

  • @DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.comEnglish
    4•4 months ago

    However, I have to disagree with the professors’ basic premise about the Media Bargaining Code taking money from a profitable business to prop up an unprofitable one. First, news should be viewed as a public service, not a business.

    That wasn’t the professor’s point - that was the reporter’s. But if you read on, another professor (of media studies) puts it quite aptly:

    The reason for this was news organisations were never in the news business, Amanda Lotz, a professor of media studies at QUT, said. "They were in the attention-attraction business. "In another era, if you were an advertiser, a newspaper was a great place to be. “But now there are just much better places to be.”

    I honestly can’t recall how long it’s been, but it’s been at least decades since there was a newspaper dedicated to just news. It’s always been all the other stuff piled in - entertainment reading, comics, crosswords, classifieds, public notices, etc - that made a “news” paper worth reading, as well as the news itself.

    This problem is older than Facebook. Facebook is simply the newest face of it.

    • @CaptObvious
      1•4 months ago

      … Code taking money from a profitable business to prop up an unprofitable one.

      That wasn’t the professor’s point - that was the reporter’s.

      It seems an accurate reporting of the law, but true. My apologies.

      The reason for this was news organisations were never in the news business, Amanda Lotz, a professor of media studies at QUT, said.

      Media studies is not journalism. It’s an adjacent field. While she certainly has a point from her perspective, I wouldn’t call it the final arbiter in this case.

      • @DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.comEnglish
        2•4 months ago

        Media studies is not journalism

        This isn’t about journalism. It’s about the fact that news orgs can only succeed if they can pay for themselves or be attached to larger money-making machines. That’s why most mastheads are owned by large media conglomerates, and those that aren’t have to charge subscription fees just to survive.

        • @CaptObvious
          1•4 months ago

          It seems to be about journalism and fair play. Media studies is tangential to that.

          ETA: I take your point. But there are better options than allowing monopolies to emerge.