Unequal battle…
When Randy Conrads launched Classmate.com, the earliest model of a social network, in November 1995, he probably had no idea how much his creation would change the world. A year after Classmate.com was born, Andrew Weinreich - an American entrepreneur, introduced to the public SixDegrees.com. It was one of the first widely used general-purpose social networking sites and a model for the technology world to launch more successful social networking sites based on the “social circle network model” such as Friendster, MySpace, LinkedIn, XING and especially Facebook.
Facebook and many other social networks were born after that such as Instagram, Twitter or video sharing platforms such as Youtbe and TikTok quickly developed, providing users with extremely rich, fast and easily accessible content. Readers and audiences gradually became accustomed to these online platforms and turned their backs on traditional media, causing the world press to struggle and then be suffocated.
Forcing technology platforms like Google to share profits from using news content is a new trend to help newspapers earn more revenue and win back readers. Photo: Getty
The increasingly unequal battle, on a global scale, has left even the most powerful media conglomerates scratching their heads. For example, in 2020, media giant News Corp had to stop printing more than 100 local and regional newspapers, equivalent to two-thirds of the newspaper titles owned by this “billion-dollar” corporation.
In Vietnam, it is difficult to count the number of newspapers, especially print newspapers, that have had to close down or barely survive due to social media domination, taking away almost all of their readers and, of course, their revenue has also "evaporated" . Not to mention, even the newsrooms that have survived the invasion of social media have had to transform and "assimilate" with their competitors.
For example, the traditional way of reporting news has had to change, with speed and multimedia being the top priorities. As the way things are done, so too has the way newsrooms are organised. A large headquarters may no longer be necessary. Last year, Reach, owner of major UK newspapers including the Mirror, Express and Star, planned to close most of its newsrooms so that staff could work remotely from home or on laptops in coffee shops.
It is possible to call this situation adaptation to the times. But it would not be wrong to say, as journalist Chris Blackhurst - former Editor-in-Chief of The Independent (UK) said, "that is the death of newsrooms" .
But in life, too much of anything is not good. The rapid growth of social networks has also exposed the dark side of these platforms, which is the proliferation of fake news due to lack of control, user data being compromised and the loss of billions of dollars in tax revenue that governments could have collected from newspapers.
Mission is not impossible
Therefore, lawmakers around the world have recently realized that there is a need to regulate social media and technology platforms. Up to now, the campaign to control social media has achieved encouraging victories in many places and on many fronts.
In March 2021, Australia announced the "Digital Platforms and News Media Bargaining" Act, which requires technology companies that own social networks and information sharing platforms such as Facebook and Google to negotiate with publishers to pay when sharing news from the press.
The Australian law is designed to address the loss of advertising revenue from traditional news outlets to the tech giants. It is estimated that in Australia, on average, $53 of every $100 spent on online advertising goes to Google, $28 to Facebook, and $19 to the rest.
A lot of information that the press spends effort and money to obtain is being used for free by social networks to make profits and steal readers from the press itself. Photo: GI
The loss of advertising revenue was partly offset by subscriptions, but not enough to prevent media outlets from going bankrupt and closing. Meanwhile, Google and Facebook have been doing very well. In 2019, a year before the Australian law was introduced, Google made $4.3 billion in advertising revenue in Australia, while Facebook made $700 million, according to documents filed with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
After Australia, also in 2021, it was the turn of the European Union (EU) to announce the "Digital Copyright Directive" with a series of special measures to create a fairer market for the press, forcing online content sharing service providers to pay remuneration to the press in general and journalists who create news content in particular.
The moves by Australia and the EU have inspired others to follow suit. Now, lawmakers in countries including Brazil, India, Indonesia, New Zealand, South Africa, and more are pursuing policies to make Big Tech pay for the news they garner from newspapers.
In the US, a bill called the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA) is also gaining bipartisan support. The bill aims to give news publishers and broadcasters greater power to collectively negotiate with social media companies, such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter, to get a larger share of advertising revenue.
Not only governments, but also news corporations themselves are determined to fight with technology companies. The latest proof is that the New York Times has just reached a $100 million deal with Alphabet to provide news for Google for 3 years.
TikTok also recently said it would launch a product that would allow marketers to place ads alongside content from premium news publishers. Half of the ad revenue on the service would go to those news organizations.
Forcing social networks and information-sharing technology platforms to pay for news and content they take from newspapers is a great hope for newspapers to survive and develop. It is also a very practical and direct way for traditional newspapers to win back readers from social media platforms.
Nguyen Khanh
Source
Comment (0)