Photo: Wikimedia Commons
This week, the Guardian, among others, brought into question recent comments by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch on News Corp. plans to incorporate a “pay wall” to all news media online. What caught most attention was Murdoch’s mentioning (see below) of the Daily Telegraph –NOT owned by Murdoch– among those media outlets being “worked on.”
Speculation has escalated as to whether illegal communication between media companies is taking place, and how this could affect journalistic institutions that are not planning to charge for content.
Anti-trust laws, which vary internationally, generally prohibit mass media corporations from disclosing information on sales strategies, with the intent to keep prices competitive and optimize the benefit for consumers. It is widely believed that media conglomerates have played their part in watering down news, and manipulating news focus especially in the past 20 years of 24-hour news.
If it is true, that News Corp. has been discussing strategies for selling web content with other companies, then the particulars of these conversations MUST be revealed. What is worse than having a poor media is having ALL media teamed up to price-gouge consumers and leave only one company in charge of deciding what news is important.
Murdoch also announced that tentative plans to begin charging for content will probably not make the June 2010 deadline, perhaps a few extra gasps of air for those hoping to axe the plan. A couple of Murdoch’s American publications include the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post.
Lawyers have noted that regulators would step in if inappropriate discussions took place between companies.
“Competitors should not be discussing business strategy for charging for online content and should certainly not be discussing pricing,” said Alan Davis, of legal firm Pinset Masons, in an interview with the Guardian.
Roy Greenslade, columnist for the Guardian, expressed concern Thursday as to whether such coordinated pay walls would create news “cartels” and how this might restrict editorial content distributed by the companies:
“Doubtless, there are other matters for the wall-builders to think about too, such as the amount of editorial copy they plan to seal off. Will it mean all news stories or some? How will they agree to handle breaking news? Will all comment and analysis go behind the wall? And all features, or some?”
Greenslade also made a point to spell out all of Murdoch’s comments from the original Telegraph interview:
“No. We are working very, very hard at this but I wouldn’t promise that we’re going to meet that date. I’m not prepared to comment on that all. It’s a work in progress. There’s a huge amount of work going on, not just with our sites, but with other people like your company.”
Now, regardless of our own stances on who should control the media of the near future, I think we can all agree that conglomerates should not be able to privately discuss plans charge.
Scenario: you login to NYT online one morning to find that you must pay a mandatory fee to see any content from now on, swiftly you move to WaPo –same thing– so on and so on… what questions would you have for the news companies in terms of how they came to such prices and how they now choose what stories to headline and what stories to dismiss? If they are teamed up in charging, would they not also be teamed up to all headline the most “profitable” news?
If the choice ultimately comes down to government-supported free news vs. conglomerate charged news, ask yourself this:
Do I want the media to be controlled by people who want to make the most money by any means necessary (like Murdoch) or the people who have at least charmed the public for a legislative seat (the Federal Government)?
Oddly, I don’t find either option in the least attractive.
Of course, some would argue that many newspapers already have a degree of editorial control over their content. There are papers that direct their information to more conservative thinkers and to those with more liberal ideas. Consumers generally understand that, and gravitate towards those publications that tend to reinforce their own ideology.
But by enforcing an across-the-board pay wall would mean that even if someone wanted to read another point of view or expand their perspective, but then had to pay for the privilege, they might not do so.
In addition, whereas printed papers are often shared, and one paid paper will reach several readers who may not be able to afford the publication, and whereas the papers can be read for free at local libraries – paid-for online content will definately limit how many consumers will access the news.
That, to me, is a huge problem. And, as you pointed out, having a few large corporations dictate who gets what for what price is disturbing.
I would think, though, that given the nature of the Internet and news distribution, that these large media outlets may, in the end, destroy their own base. New media companies who are not part of the ‘club’ will start to emerge and compete. Journalists themselves will start filing directly, or forming their own mini-publications.
I do question the assumption that just because these large corporations control large chunks of media that they will narrow their focus and laser point what they want to sell. Understanding the different needs and interests of the market, I think, would actually lead these same companies to diversify their ideologocal portfolios.
But that could just be wishful thinking.
Good post. Got me thinking. And worried.