(Above: recycled content of a kind that threatens democracy as we know it).
Blessed are the cheesemakers, and so it seems, blessed is Mark Day.
Because Chairman Rupert and Google are suddenly at one. Working together to filch pennies from the pockets of consumers.
Gone are the rhetorical flourishes that saw reprehensible types like Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt damned, as the aggregating magpies they are, low rent types who thieved other peoples' content, and by linking and referencing built up their own blogs into hit-generating machines at the heart of Chairman Rupert's online antipodean empire.
Perhaps the worst example of this kind of parasite on the intestines of the internet is The Punch, Australia's most torpid conversation, with its stolen photographs, its constant linking to YouTube and suchlike, and its wretched abuse of its contributors by offering them glory rather than payment.
Was it only in July that John Hartigan called out these wretched bloggers and denounced them for the evil that they perpetuated?
The difference ... between professionals and amateurs is that bloggers don’t go to jail for their work – they simply aren’t held accountable like real reporters.
Like Keating’s famous “all tip and no iceberg”, it could be said that the blogosphere is all eyeballs and no insight.
As Robert Thomsen of The Wall Street Journal says:
“the blogs and comment sites are basically editorial echo chambers rather than centres of creation”. “and their cynicism about so-called traditional media is only matched by their opportunism in exploiting it”
As Robert Thomsen of The Wall Street Journal says:
“the blogs and comment sites are basically editorial echo chambers rather than centres of creation”. “and their cynicism about so-called traditional media is only matched by their opportunism in exploiting it”
One of the best known comment sites in Australia matches this identikit.
It started as a moralising soapbox; boasting about its lack of standards. Positioned as an underdog, it lectures mainstream media every day. (here).
I'm still not certain if the "best known comment site" he was referring to belonged to Tim Blair, or Andrew Bolt, but never mind, we'll let the charge stand.
Blogs and a large number of comment sites specialise in political extremism and personal vilification.
Radical sweeping statements unsubstantiated with evidence are common.
Radical sweeping statements unsubstantiated with evidence are common.
Indeed. And only a few days ago, Chairman Rupert was reminding us of how appalling this kind of behavior is:
The critics say people won’t pay. I believe they will – but only if we give them something of good and useful value. Our customers are smart enough to know that you don’t get something for nothing.
That goes for some of our friends online too. And yet there are those who think they have a right to take our news content and use it for their own purposes without contributing a penny to its production.
Some rewrite – at times without attribution, the news stories of expensive and distinguished journalists who invested days, weeks, or even months in their stories – all under the tattered veil of “fair use.” These people are not investing in journalism. They are feeding off the hard-earned efforts and investments of others. And their almost wholesale misappropriation of our stories is not “fair use.” To be impolite, it’s theft. (here).
That goes for some of our friends online too. And yet there are those who think they have a right to take our news content and use it for their own purposes without contributing a penny to its production.
Some rewrite – at times without attribution, the news stories of expensive and distinguished journalists who invested days, weeks, or even months in their stories – all under the tattered veil of “fair use.” These people are not investing in journalism. They are feeding off the hard-earned efforts and investments of others. And their almost wholesale misappropriation of our stories is not “fair use.” To be impolite, it’s theft. (here).
Indeed, and the first thing to do is to clean out the Augean stables, and for News Corp to rid itself of its wretched blogs, which feed off the hard-earned efforts and investments of others.
That way Chairman Rupert can avoid blowback from wretched thieves, like that wretched Arianna Huffington, who had the cheek to write this rubbish:
... let's be honest, many of those complaining the loudest are working both sides of the street. Take, for example, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. Just look at the sites News Corp. owns, as TechDirt.com recently did, and you will see example after example after example of the pot calling the kettle black. And aggregating its content.
The Wall Street Journal has a tech section that's nothing more than a parasite -- uh, I mean, aggregator -- of outside content.
FoxNews.com has a Politics Buzztracker that bloodsucks -- uh, I mean aggregates and links to -- stories from a variety of different sources, including the NY Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC and others.
AllThingsD has a section called Voices that not only aggregates headlines, but also takes a nice chunk of text -- and puts the links out at the bottom of the story.
And Murdoch's News Corp. also owns IGN, which has a variety of web properties, including the Rotten Tomatoes movie review aggregation site -- which is entirely made up of movie reviews pulled together from other places. Did someone say "stealing"?
Talk about having your aggregation cake and bitching about others eating a slice too.
That's why I could only roll my eyes when the Wall Street Journal's Robert Thomson wagged his finger at Google, and complained that it "encourages promiscuity" among news consumers. (here).
But in my distress at that upstart Huffington tugging at Chairman Rupert's metaphorical beard, I almost forget good old Mark Day, and his announcement of peace in our time. Murdoch and Google chief not all at odds is the happy news of the day.
Was it only the other week that Chairman Rupert was reported to be seeking an alliance with Bing to bring down the evil Google empire?
How quickly things move along on the web. Now it seems that it's the Apple e-reader that will save Rupert Murdoch and facilitate the shearing of the sheep so that the empire might grow and prosper, and evil content stealing bloggers be banished to the outer fringes of the full to overflowing intertubes.
Because you see it's not just the fate of News Corp that is at stake. It's the future of democracy, and western civilisation as we know it, and people aren't paying enough to save Chairman Rupert so that he can save democracy. Why even Google chief Eric Schmidt says so:
Schmidt says the flow of accurate information, diverse views and proper analysis is critical for a functioning democracy. Murdoch says it is pertinent to think in terms of the future of democracy rather than the future of newspapers. "Free men and women require honest and reliable news about events affecting their countries and their lives," he says. "Whether the newspaper of the future is delivered with electrons or dead trees is ultimately not that important."
Both would probably add a simple rider to these fine sentiments: as long as we get paid.
Well indeedy. When I think of The Australian in the future, I'll think about the future of democracy. When I think of Murdoch thieves, I'll think of the Westminister system. And when I think of fine analytical reporting, I'll think of Glenn Beck on Fox.
Both would probably add a simple rider to these fine sentiments: as long as we get paid.
Well indeedy. When I think of The Australian in the future, I'll think about the future of democracy. When I think of Murdoch thieves, I'll think of the Westminister system. And when I think of fine analytical reporting, I'll think of Glenn Beck on Fox.
All this current bout of breast beating and navel gazing started as a result of the Federal Trade Commission organizing a conference on How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?
Fortunately Glenn Beck was on the job, and noted that anyone who turned up to the workshop were likely Marxist, on the basis that it was connected to Free Press, the most important Marxist group possibly in the world, but definitely in America. (here).
That's when the scales fell from my eyes. The news that Chairman Rupert might have attended a Marxist inspired forum made me realise that indeed the future of democracy was now at stake in this new digital age.
Which is why I'm tremendously cheered that Google is now helping out Chairman Rupert by updating its 'First click free' policy. You see Google's crawlers disapprove of cloaking, but they need permission to access content hidden behind a paywall:
One way we overcome this is through a program called First Click Free. Participating publishers allow the crawler to index their subscription content, then allow users who find one of those articles through Google News or Google Search to see the full page without requiring them to register or subscribe. The user's first click to the content is free, but when a user clicks on additional links on the site, the publisher can show a payment or registration request. First Click Free is a great way for publishers to promote their content and for users to check out a news source before deciding whether to pay. Previously, each click from a user would be treated as free. Now, we've updated the program so that publishers can limit users to no more than five pages per day without registering or subscribing. If you're a Google user, this means that you may start to see a registration page after you've clicked through to more than five articles on the website of a publisher using First Click Free in a day. We think this approach still protects the typical user from cloaking, while allowing publishers to focus on potential subscribers who are accessing a lot of their content on a regular basis. (here)
Oh yes, it's a love in, a love fest better than the days of the hippies, and if you don't exhaust your first click free access, you can rush off to read Eric Schmidt explain How Google Can Help Newspapers.
But what I love most is the conflation of the fate of Chairman Rupert with the future of everything we hold dear, as cheesemaker Mark Day explains:
Logic suggests each side needs the other and in due course a compromise agreement will be reached. Money is obviously a vitally important element in the debate, but both agree there is another compelling reason to solve the current stand-off: that the future of democracy is bound up in the future of journalism.
That's right, the future of Rupert Murdoch is the future of journalism is the future of democracy.
Well William Randloph Hearst once thought that he was the future of journalism, and indeed Hearst Castle, as well as providing the backdrop for certain scenes in Spartacus, is a must visit place for tourists anxious to help keep the Hearst dream alive, but truth to tell, when the great depression knocked the stuffing out of Hearst's empire, other players replaced him, and the world kept turning.
So it goes, and so it will go for Chairman Rupert, and perhaps for his empire.
Meantime, will I pay for the pleasure of reading The Australian? Think again, and here's hoping that Mark Day keeps on with the dreaming each Monday, as he devises new plans for Pinky, the brain and Chairman Rupert to take over the world.
But what a relief that the coming redemption, the onrushing rapture won't involve the satanists at bling bling bing, but virtual newsagents deploying Apple fresh technology. Suddenly Steve Jobs is the future .... and democracy and Chairman Rupert are saved once more in the nick of time.
What a relief. Now excuse me, because as empires crumble, what better use of my time than a little oyster and snail eating as my bath awaits me ...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments older than two days are moderated and there will be a delay in publishing them.