Slashdot Mirror
Consumer Groups Want To Tax Facebook To Save Journalism (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: How to fund ethical journalism in the Facebook era is the multi-billion dollar question of the hour, and a technology-focused consumer group by the name of Free Press believes it has a solution. The group has unveiled a new proposal that suggests taxing all online targeted advertising, then using that money to fund the nation's struggling news empires, big and small. The program would apply a 2 percent tax on companies generating more than $200 million in annual targeted-ad revenues, then use that money to create a "Public Interest Media Endowment." The $2 billion collected annually would then be managed by the government itself, or an outside, existing institution such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Such a tax would most obviously apply to both social media giants, but also the giant telecom monopolies increasingly trying to elbow their way into the online ad space. This endowment, in turn, would help fund local journalism, investigative reporting, media literacy, noncommercial social networks, civic-technology projects, and "news and information for underserved communities," suggests the group. "The problem for journalism is that Facebook and Google control nearly 70 percent of this marketplace," Free Press Director Tim Karr told Motherboard via email. "And neither are news organizations. In fact, only one of the top ten digital advertisers in the U.S. (Verizon Media Group/Oath) is in the news business (HuffPost, Techcrunch), and then only partially so."
all the job sites, ebay and craigslist functions were originally controlled by the newspapers. if you wanted a job in NYC, you bought the Sunday NY Times. if you wanted to hire someone, you advertised in a newspaper.
They acted snobby when the internet came and watched their revenues vaporize
No. Public subsidies for journalism are wrong on so many levels. As wrong as public financing of political campaigns, though those are very popular.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
The problem with journalism being profit driven, especially in an age where news is basically a commodity that everyone gets for free, is that it corrupts it into a toxic mixture of outrage and hyper-partisan opinion.
When you look at the least biased, most reliable source of news and analysis they tend to be the ones that are not dependent on getting views - the BBC, and agencies like Reuters and AFP.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Start doing journalism that sells and that people will support.
We tried that model and the problem is that stops being journalism and starts being sensationalism. Eventually, it diverges from reality completely at which point it's like a tabloid. Fox News is the greatest example of this.
Why should a new tax have to look after any normal "job"?
Because it's not a normal job. An informed public is elemental to a healthy democracy.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
... I see : Opinion, Opinion, Opinion, Perspective, Why X is Y, Opinion, Opinion, Perspective...
I think I found the issue with "Journalism".
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
If you want to have ethical journalism, how about not starting out by taking other people's money away to fund your own pet project? And how about reporting facts instead of speculation as news? How many times have we seen during the entire Mueller Russia hoax sensational headlines and "bombshell" statements from anonymous sources, with most stories ending with "So far no evidence of Russia collusion has been found." Apparently being ethical to these guys means writing all the agitprop that's unfit to print.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Journalistic standards have become nothing more than an idealistic concept. Take the Covington kid was tried and convicted in the media for what was effectively face crime. Even a basic check of the facts would have quickly shown that the kid was innocent of the accusations laid against him. Unfortunately it took a $250 million dollar lawsuit against the Washington Post to get them to correct their previous coverage.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Their journalists finally remembered their 'standards' and wrote up a much more accurate story. Too bad it took a $250 million defamation lawsuit in order for it to happen.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Fact of the matter is that journalism is dying because people don't trust journalists.
https://www.cjr.org/the_media_...
If you don't trust someone you don't value them. If you don't value someone you will try to avoid paying for their services.
The problem with state-sponsored media is that for every BBC there are a dozen Russia Todays.
And I don't even know if BBC is unbiased when it comes to British politics. As an American, the BBC's famed neutrality seems based on its view of the USA.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
forcing journalism to find a money stream has directly lead to billionaires fighting over the news they can pay for
Well government funding is extremely well-suited to endeavours that you do not want to be tied to a profit motive. Healthcare, military, and education are perfect examples.
High-quality unbiased journalism fits the same category, and is a "public good". The BBC model is a very good one (not quite perfect). It relies on a "tax" of sorts, but it's legally structured in such a way that it is not beholden to the government in any way and is not a state news service.
(If you're from the USA you might have different views on what government should fund)
C17H21NO4
The problem is that most journalists are not Liberal, they are Leftist. How do you tell the difference? Easy! Liberals believe in free speech. They might disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.
Leftists have no problem with censorship and use it as a method of first resort. "Journalism isn't really journalism when it avoids stories for fear of how some might react." Think about that. It's an astounding confession. Ms Hinsliff is a staff journalist who worked at several of Britain's top newspapers for 22 years before she wrote that statement. You would think someone so experienced, who also benefited from a top-caliber Cambridge education, would have had the fundamentals of journalism sorted when she was a cub reporter in 1994. Appears she learned things much more devious. What else has she obscured and concealed during her career?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!