Slashdot Mirror
Rupert Murdoch Pushes Facebook To Pay For News To Guarantee Quality (bloomberg.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Rupert Murdoch, the media billionaire who controls the Wall Street Journal, called on Facebook to begin paying publishers fees to carry the news that its users post and share online in a sign of the print industry's growing frustration with social media. "If Facebook wants to recognize 'trusted' publishers then it should pay those publishers a carriage fee similar to the model adopted by cable companies," Murdoch, the executive chairman of News Corp. said Monday in a statement. "The publishers are obviously enhancing the value and integrity of Facebook through their news and content but are not being adequately rewarded for those services." "Facebook and Google have popularized scurrilous news sources through algorithms that are profitable for these platforms but inherently unreliable," Murdoch said. "Recognition of a problem is one step on the pathway to cure, but the remedial measures that both companies have so far proposed are inadequate, commercially, socially and journalistically." Murdoch, who also leads 21st Century Fox, called for a system similar to that in cable television, where large distributors like Comcast and AT&T pay fees to the TV network owners that attract their viewers.
Do the world a favour Rupert and just die already.
In the same sentence?
Is that supposed to be a joke?
There's a reason we call it Faux News.
Sorry, I was laughing so much at the idea of Murdoch and quality news being in the same sentence that I passed out...
Brilliant. It will be like building a wall between the consumers and a fair and balanced view, and making the consumers pay for it.
If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
... of fake news. I love this bullshit that mainstream media has been pushing. The reality is the elites have lost control of the public mind and don't like it.
with Rupert you already get the best news money buys. To be fair though I can't think of any news source that is independent of financial or political influence, just Rupert's organisations bias is so blatantly obvious it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Most of the media long ago sold out.
And I actually buy a print copy of the WSJ once or twice each week.
Just say NO!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
And we are supposed to believe that the owner of Fox News is the guardian of quality information presented in an unbiased format? Really?
from a guy who bet the world on traditional media, paywalled all his assets, and cant seem to figure out why he cant monetize news the same way he did 40 years ago.
buying your news doesnt guarantee its quality, only that there will be money to produce more of the news youve chosen to consume. Independent editors, journalists, and newsrooms all ensure quality news but Murdoch wouldnt know anything about that as hes spent his life famously buying these outlets up and transforming them into nothing more than neoconservative political bullhorns.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Right now it seems like we've got 2 real camps for news. The mainstream media, which 99% of the time their extent of "journalism" is to read the press releases/talking points of the corporations, politicians, political parties etc... that help fund them, and expend zero resources finding out whether any of it is actually true or not. Then we have the wild west of free media. A world where they take the same press releases, then pull out of their ass whatever interpretation and guesses they can make from that fit the bias's of the target audience. Neither type is worth the pixels on the screen they are written on
Sasha's first day on trolling job, please go easy on him.
Seriously, that is some 100% Pure, Organic, Dolphin-Free QUALITY Bullshit he peddles. You gotta hand him that.
How exactly is he in the US? He's an australian.
Murdoch became an American citizen in 1985.
And we are supposed to believe that the owner of Fox News is the guardian of quality information presented in an unbiased format? Really?
During the election, I actually had no trouble finding Fox's coverage of the same stories Trump supporters refused to read because it came from the "biased liberal media". Of course, once I posted a link to Fox, they still wouldn't read it, because that's cognitive dissonance for you.
Heck, it wasn't even that hard to find an article on Breitbart where they're not exactly singing the praises of Trump's tax plan. But I'm sure those drinking the kool aid just see it as an acceptable casualty of making sure the country isn't ruined by those damned snowflake liberals, or something like that.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Meh. We have yet to see right-wing snowflakes in real life; meanwhile they're a dime a dozen on the liberal side.
lucm, indeed.
Rupert doesn't get it. The news companies that he owns are some of the perpetrators of the fake news. Facebook paying him when facebook's users post a link to something isn't going to improve the quality.
It would make him some extra cash, but it wouldn't improve anything other than his bottom line.
What are you talking about? We saw several hundred in Charlottesville, about 200-300 in the Shelbyville/Murfreesboro TN protest, and a handful more at other rallies. You can't see the snowflakes because they are white and blend in with the natural snowflakes. Try harder, n00b.
Donald Trump is a right wing snowflake who whines and threatens to sue when he is triggered by good journalism.
Meh. We have yet to see right-wing snowflakes in real life; meanwhile they're a dime a dozen on the liberal side.
Here you go: On Campus, Trump Fans Say They Need ‘Safe Spaces’
Lots of dimes and dozens on both sides.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
BBC does real journalism, as you describe it.
They have a huge network of reporters around the world, embedded in the local cultures for years at a time, picking up the kind of fascinating news stories that I don't see elsewhere.
Listen to the programme 'From Our Own Correspondent' for a taste. US listeners don't need to worry. Most of what's covered hasn't reached the US level of attention needed to give it partisan spin yet...
True there are other bits of the BBC that don't do real journalism as you describe. But anyone who decides to attack that side of it as a means to attack the real journalism is being pointless.
I mean, the people publishing news under the Murdoch empire are getting paid, and yet, there's no precedence for quality there.
If money was changing hands, would it help the "fake news" problem on facebook?
If facebook ends up paying for Wall Street Journal content, then the full content should be available to all facebook users. Not just a couple sentences like it is today.
Fox News - as watched (and regularly praised) by the US President!
Tells you all you need to know ;-)
If you can't see the difference you should probably not vote
There we go.
Step 1: only allow people who think like you to vote
Step 2: force people who don't think like you to wear a visible mark on their clothes
Step 3: start sterilizing them
You lovely tolerant liberals have started your journey to pure evil, and to the bitter end you'll keep thinking that you were right. What a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites.
Used to tell people like you to go to hell, but lately I've started to wonder if we're not there already.
lucm, indeed.
Either way, Trump IS a motherfucking snowflake.
He's not. You're corrupting the meaning of words in your quest for insults. Donald Trump is a liar, a ruthless businessman, and tacky as they come. But he's not a snowflake, or a nazi, or a dictator.
lucm, indeed.
snowflake
Idiots like you who use "snowflake" as a generic insult are like fat girls who start wearing yoga pants; just ruining a good thing for everyone.
lucm, indeed.
So what's wrong with that? Leftists needed safe spaces. It seems like you're arguing against your own side. How's it OK when you do it, but suddenly wrong when others do it. I really do not understand.
He didn't say there's anything wrong with it; he said they're snowflakes, which the parent asserted do not exist on the right. If you need a "safe space," you're a snowflake.
Stop! Dremel time!