Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Media vs Internet

Entry 2356, on 2024-07-18 at 20:12:00 (Rating 2, Computers)

Summary

I argue that social media platforms like Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and Google Search are not "stealing" content from traditional media, but rather providing a valuable service by exposing news to a wider audience. I point out that social media companies make a very small portion of their income from links to news sites, while news sites earn a significant portion of their revenue from incoming visitors linked from social media.

I suggest that traditional media should be paying social media platforms for the promotion they receive, rather than demanding payment. I also highlight that social media offers a more diverse range of perspectives, allowing users to engage with multiple sources and comment freely. I conclude by emphasizing that the traditional media needs to adapt to the changing landscape and focus on making their content more accessible and engaging for online audiences, rather than relying on outdated business models.

Full Text

A recent issue being discussed more seriously here in New Zealand, but one which has existed overseas, and to a lesser extent here, for years now is how the traditional media (AKA the legacy media or the mainstream media, which are basically traditional newspapers, TV and radio news bulletins, etc) are being affected by on-line news in social media and search platforms like Facebook, X (AKA Twitter), and Google Search.

The claim is that the internet platforms are "stealing" content from the traditional media, and using it along with ads, to make a lot money, while the original sources all gradually fail because of lack of advertising and subscribers.

This seems like a reasonable position to hold: we can all see how on-line companies are making a lot of money while traditional media is failing, but does the cause and effect really work in the way it is being stated here?

I can't see how it can be, although maybe there is something I am missing. So if I am wrong about this, and you can say why, please leave a comment.

Anyway, here's the way I see it, and remember I "live on the internet" and spend a significant amount of time practically every day on social media, especially YouTube, Facebook, and X (previously known as Twitter). I see material of various kinds, which includes news headlines with links to articles on web sites.

But that's the point: the social media sites haven't copied the content of the articles, they have just included the headline, often along with some commentary, and also have a link to the original article. The social media user still has to go to the media web site if they want to read the article. When they do that, they see the media's advertising and might even have to pay if there is a paywall in place.

According to one source, Meta (owner of Facebook) only make 1% of their income from links to news sites. At the same time, those news sites make 25% of their income from incoming visitors linked from social media sources.

So the social media companies seem to be doing the media a favour by making their content known to a wider audience. Maybe it's the traditional media who should be paying the social media companies for the useful service they provide!

I should say here that there are some points which weaken my argument a bit. First, sometimes there is a summary (usually written by the person who made the social media post) which might mean the original item doesn't need to be read. In many cases, the headline is enough, especially for those with limited attention spans, which could be quite a lot of users! And finally, some searches provide an AI generated summary of the results, meaning the links in the results are never used.

But in general, I find that most of the time I click the link and end up on the media organisation's site, which is surely their intention. And I suspect that, in most cases, I would not have visited the news site without being prompted by the social media post.

A payment system, similar to what is being proposed, was tried in Canada, and it seems that when the social media companies (mainly Facebook in this case) refused to pay and just didn't link anything from traditional media, that things became even worse, and a government bailout was necessary. This supports my ideas, but I should say here that other factors, such as the pandemic, and just general lessening of confidence in mainstream media might have also been a cause.

I do find myself discovering a lot of news on social media, and if the headline interests me I will take the link and read the article at the news site. Why don't I just go straight to the news site? Well, for several reasons, and this might produce some ideas the news producers could use to encourage more direct visits...

First, there is no one site which has all the news I want. I could visit ten different sites and look for stuff from each one which interested me, but why do that when all those sites are represented on Facebook or X?

Second, I like to comment on many news items, and news sites often either have no commenting, or the comments have neem turned off to avoid stuff they don't like. On social media, I can almost always comment.

Third, most traditional media sites are very biased, usually towards the left. That means their headlines on social media are also biased, but at least if I get multiple sources there is a chance I will see more than one perspective.

Finally, many news sites have paywalls or other restrictions. That is fair enough, because they have to pay for their work some way, but what about making the site more friendly, which would encourage more visitors, and make advertising more profitable. I don't like ads, but I realise they are a fair way to pay for "free" services.

So things have changed, and I don't think the media will survive long unless they change their strategies. But making social media pay for news is like making Tesla pay Ford, or tyre stores paying horseshoe manufacturers, or streaming movie services paying DVD stores. It doesn't make a lot of sense, and it will likely fail here, like it has elsewhere.

Comment 1 (7689) by Anonymous on 2024-07-19 at 09:42:35:

The media create the news and Facebook uses it for free. How is that fair.

Comment 2 (7690) by OJB on 2024-07-19 at 12:20:53:

Maybe you didn't read what I said carefully enough. I agree the media are creating the news, but social and search sites on the internet are linking to those stories, which should create more traffic to the news articles, so they are doing the news creators a favour, IMHO. The numbers I quoted seem to support that. The mainstream media's issues do not arise primarily from this.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.