Media Mutterings-Part 1

The Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill - Again

Introduction

What does the New Year have in store for New Zealand media and its audiences and advertisers?

Shayne Currie NZME Editor at Large and author of Media Insider quizzed top media, marketing, PR and advertising executives with five questions for 2025.

The series ran over four articles. They can be seen here (1), here (2), here (3) here and here (4).

From the outset, this is an interesting series of articles – about the media by the media. But are the articles a penetrating an critical overview of the state of the media, or rather, as seems to be the case, an opportunity for self-aggrandisement (or perhaps even self-pleasuring) – a chance to portray the media in the most positive light.

Or perhaps it is no more and no less the media equivalent of Ricardo Simich’s social column and is merely gossip about the media. In which case – who cares. Would this column be more appropriate for an inhouse publication or a specialist publication by the media for the media.

A number of media people were interviewed for the article. On the whole the questions and answers were fairly anodyne – broad generalisations and a few complaints about a tough and unforgiving environment but with little in-depth discussion or analysis of the real problems facing the media.

The interviewees were those who are involved in the two major communicative arms of media – those who do the communicating such as radio, TV and “newspapers” and those who are involved in a supportive role such as the advertising and PR industries – I think the term these days is “influencers”.

One would have expected some careful discussion of the media environment that has developed. One would have expected Mr Currie to have asked the hard questions that should be asked by a competent journalist. What is the true state of the play. How did we get here. Why is it that advertisers have shifted from MSM platforms to the Digital Ones. What could we have done to arrest this shift.

Rather the questions are general and the result is a series of articles that are more of a form of media infortainment rather than a penetrating analysis.

What this article sets out to do it to address two themes that emerge from the articles. The themes are interrelated because the outcome of one has an impact on the attitudes which lead to the other.

I shall start by considering the continued claims by MSM on State bounty in the form of a piece of legislation that effectively redistributes some of the wealth generated by advertising in the direction of MSM whence it has fled. I consider and discuss what the proposal really means on the political and ideological approaches that underpin it. In summary I argue that it is an indirect form of socialism in action – an approach one would have expected from the Left Wing Government from which it originated in the first place.

Secondly I shall consider the technological misrepresentations that have been advanced by MSM to justify their apparent need for this legislation. That leads to a discussion of why it is that advertising has left the MSM platforms – something that they have asserted but have inadequately explained – or perhaps they do not wish for such an explanation for it would reveal the weaknesses of their business model and effectively demonstrate that technology has advanced and has left them and their business models in the dust.

Perhaps the most common theme throughout the articles – at least from the perspective of the Mainstream Media (MSM) spokespeople (perhaps with the exception of Radio NZ) – is that of the inroads into media revenues by the large digital platforms such as Facebook and Google.

The complaints are two-fold. The first is the delays that have taken place in the enactment of the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill (FDNBB).The second relates to the way in which (allegedly) the Platforms use MSM content. And it is in this second issue that MSM misrepresents the position – at least from a technological point of view.

Part 2 of this series will look at a couple of calls for media regulation and suggest a warning.

Delays in FDNBB

Unsurprisingly one of the calls to arms on the part of the Government comes from Sinead Boucher who have a large helping of entitlement as proprietor of Stuff although it is mentioned in passing by some of the other interviewees.

That entitlement is MSM is entitled to maintain a leadership position in the media landscape, that MSM is entitled to – indeed has a right to – advertising revenue that previously supported MSM but has now leaded to the Platforms. Why is that? Simply because there are more eyeballs on the Platforms than there are on MSM sites – although ironically it is the Platforms that direct eyeballs to MSM sites in the final analysis.

Ms Boucher’s complaint is this:

“A game-changer for us all would be a government ready to muscle up to the global tech giants and AI billionaires who publish, scrape, profit from and create with unique New Zealand journalism for free, while giving almost nothing back to the content creators”

I shall address the technological aspects of this comment below.

She goes on to say

“There’s no doubt 2025 will be extremely challenging for some of the smaller publishers and publications, so a government like Australia’s, who stand up for local business, would create the level playing field New Zealanders deserve.”

Ms. Boucher points the begging bowl firmly in the direction of the Government. In a comment redolent of the type of socialistic attitude that engendered the FDNBB (it was after all introduced by the previous Labour Government under the watchful eye of Mr. Willie Jackson) Ms. Boucher badmouths the success of the tech entrepreneurs, articulates the politics of envy and jealousy so typical of those who have not achieved that level of success and who calls upon the Government for a solution rather than finding one within her own organisation.

A similar attitude emanates from Mr Michael Boggs of NZME. He says that the FDNBB needs to be passed into law but acknowledges that it is not the solution to the woes suffered by MSM.

“We’re also looking forward to seeing the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill being introduced and passed through Parliament – it’s been a long time coming.”

“It’s by no means a silver bullet but the big global tech platforms like Google and Facebook should be paying for the content they’re currently taking free of charge from our sites – content that is produced by our journalists across the country.”

He too engages in technological misrepresentation which I shall address below but like Ms Boucher, but perhaps less obviously, he sees a role for the Government in contributing to the solution for declining revenues.

But what is proposed by the FDNBB is a process by which MSM may milk the Platforms using a Government established negotiating process which ultimately – should negotiations prove unsuccessful – will involve a dictated impost upon the Platforms by a regulator. Although this differs substantially from the Public Interest Journalism model, it is nevertheless a State provided solution for businesses that have found themselves in difficulty as a result of declining revenues.

The only justification that can be advanced is the rather feeble one that MSM has a role to play as the “Fourth Estate” – holding Government to account.

But Mr. Currie in his ever-so-friendly style hasn’t really asked his interviewees the hard questions – not has MSM in particular be prepared to address those questions but like so many others in New Zealand go whining to the Government to “do something.”

In some respects Mr. Boggs is prepared to own part of the problem:

“As an industry, we need to continue to earn the trust of New Zealanders and at NZME we’re really focused on that – it would be a game-changer to be the most trusted media organisation. We’re doing a heap on this including making opinion pieces even more clearly labelled, linking to alternate views on opinion pieces so people can easily access other viewpoints, including key facts at the top of opinion pieces so readers can form their own views.”

This is a clear recognition of declining trust in MSM that media is experiencing. But it goes a little further than clearly labelling opinion pieces or listing the “three main points” list at the beginning of each article – essentially telling the reader what the piece is about rather than letting the reader make up his or her own mind. This probably demonstrates the level of contempt that MSM has for the intelligence of its audience.

Interestingly enough Mr. Stuart Dick of Are Media (which publishes the Listener among other magazine titles) makes no mention of the FDNBB. But then Are Media was not an applicant for nor a recipient of funds from the PIJF and makes no case for the FDNBB. Perhaps it is because the Listener has a dedicated audience and a fairly strong paywall providing for a subscription based audience with bonus digital content available for digital subscribers that is not available in the hard copy publication.

Let us call out the FDNBB for what it really is – a State sponsored wealth redistribution scheme – a socialistic model which take from those that have and gives to those that think that they deserve it.

Although the FDNBB was introduced by Labour in New Zealand the first model was introduced in Australia, not by the Albanese Labour Government but by the Morison Government that was seen to be centre-right. However, one wonders about that especially since the legislation targeted the Digital Platforms – a big target with deep pockets.

Indeed most of the Australian efforts to regulate the Internet have been aimed at the Digital Platforms with varying degrees of success. The attempt to regulate the flow of mis/disinformation collapsed. The latest manifestation – a modification of the Australian version of the FDNBB – is in the form of a compulsory levy on all Digital Platforms that qualify with an adjustment of the amount based on private arrangements between news organisations and the Platforms. This is the most egregious form of using the model as a method of wealth redistribution but not surprising coming from a Left Wing Labour Government.

The Canadian model was a creation of a Left-Wing Government headed by Justin Trudeau. The Canadian model has its difficulties and is not yet fully operative. But it is still a socialistic State-sponsored wealth redistribution model.

What is truly surprising is that a Centre-Right coalition Government made a number of decisions about the FDNBB that lead one to conclude that there is a socialistic leaning within the corridors of power in Wellington. These corridors may be within the Beehive itself and within the bureaucrats who advise the Ministers and who seem to be wedded to the FDNBB proposals of the previois Government.

The decisions are these:

1. The FDNBB had been introduced shortly before the October 2023 Election. Decisions as to its future rested with the incoming Government.

2. Rather than dispatch the Bill to oblivion, the incoming Government decided to progress the Bill to the Select Committee stage.

3. After the Select Committee hearings the recommendation of the Committee was that the Bill should not proceed.

So far, so good.

4. Then the Minister, Mr. Paul Goldsmith, made the unusual decision of ignoring the Select Committee recommendations and decided to keep the Bill alive. Some adjustments had to be made.

5. The Bill was scheduled for a Second Reading (much to the bated breath delight of MSM) but was suddenly withdrawn from the Order Paper, Mr. Goldsmith claiming that further work needed to be done.

6. The Bill remains in limbo and Mr. Goldsmith has decided to wait and see what happens with the latest Australian proposals, perhaps unaware that these have an even more socialistic tendency than the original Australian legislation

The whole performance of the coalition Government over this legislation leads one to question where there priorities lie. Are they in the area of a State sponsored and validated wealth redistribution scheme? Or have they really though the issues through properly.

I have written about my experience in trying to put forward proposals that are principled and are based on the location of property interests and the compensation that can be arranged for “free riding” on those property interests.

My proposals can be found here and Mr Goldsmith’s reaction to them can be found here.

The real problem is the perception (rather than the reality) that the Platforms are using content generated by MSM to attract audiences to their platforms. This is perception is graphically (albeit wrongly) demonstrated by Ms Boucher when she claims

“the global tech giants and AI billionaires who publish, scrape, profit from and create with unique New Zealand journalism for free, while giving almost nothing back to the content creators.”

If that was the truth of the matter then the remedy that exists for Ms. Boucher and that is available right now lies in copyright infringement. The problem is that as the law stands the way in which the Big Platforms “free-ride” on MSM content does not involve them publishing that material although they use some of it in a way that is not infringement as it stands but could amount to infringement with a few simple amendments to the Copyright Act.

This moves the discussion to consider the issue of the way that MSM has misrepresented what the Platforms are doing and how they engage in technological misrepresentation.

The secret lies in content aggregation rather than content use. There is a difference as I shall describe. I shall set out a summary of how the Platforms aggregate content and then move to a more in depth study of how Google News operates.

Technological Misrepresentation.

An Overview

Digital platforms like Facebook and Google aggregate content from mainstream media in a few distinct ways, mainly by using algorithms and user engagement data to curate and display news content that is likely to be of interest to their users. Here's how they typically do this:

News Feeds and Aggregation Algorithms: Platforms like Facebook use complex algorithms to determine what content to show in each user’s feed. These algorithms analyze users' past behavior, preferences, and interactions to curate news stories from various media outlets that they are more likely to engage with. This means that if a user frequently interacts with content from a specific news source, they’re more likely to see similar content in their feed.

Google News and Search: Google aggregates news through Google News and its search engine. Google News uses an algorithm to collect news from various sources and organize it into categories. Users can access news stories directly from Google News or via search results when they look for current events or specific topics. Google's search algorithms prioritize content based on relevance, freshness, and the credibility of the source among other factors.

Content Snippets and Thumbnails: Both Facebook and Google display snippets or thumbnails of news articles, often with a headline, a brief summary, and a visual image. Users can click on these snippets to be redirected to the original publisher’s website to read the full article. This helps in driving traffic to the news websites but also keeps users engaged within the social media or search platform ecosystem.

Licensing and Partnerships: Especially in response to legal and economic pressures, Google and Facebook have begun entering into licensing agreements with some media outlets. These agreements allow the platforms to display content from these outlets in return for a fee. For example, Google’s News Showcase is a product where Google pays news organizations to curate content for story panels on Google products.

Instant Articles and AMP: Facebook’s Instant Articles and Google’s Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP) are technologies designed to load articles quickly on mobile devices. Publishers can choose to host their content directly on these platforms to improve loading times and potentially increase readership, though this also means that readers are consuming content within the platform's environment rather than the original publisher’s site.

These aggregation methods have significant impacts on the news industry, influencing everything from traffic to news sites to the revenues they can generate from their own advertisements. They also raise questions about the control these platforms have over the news people see, potentially influencing public opinion and the visibility of various news sources.

How Google News Works.

Google News aggregates content using a sophisticated blend of technologies and processes that include web crawling, data analysis, and machine learning algorithms. It's designed to provide users with a broad array of news stories from various sources, tailored to individual preferences. Here’s a closer look at the technological processes involved:

Web Crawling: Google deploys web crawlers, also known as spiders, which are automated programs designed to scan and index the content of web pages across the internet. These crawlers visit news websites and other content-rich platforms, identifying and indexing articles that are then processed through Google's algorithms.

Indexing: Once content is crawled, it's indexed based on several factors including keywords, topics, freshness, and source authority. This index is a massive database of discovered URLs along with a range of details about the contents of each URL, which allows Google News to quickly retrieve information.

Natural Language Processing (NLP): Google uses NLP to understand and categorize content. This technology helps the algorithm to discern topics, sentiments, and the overall subject matter of news articles, which is critical for categorizing and ranking news stories appropriately.

Machine Learning and Algorithms: Google News uses machine learning algorithms to personalize the news feed for individual users. The algorithms analyze user interactions (like clicks, reading time, and frequency of visits) to learn user preferences and subsequently predict what new content might be of interest. These algorithms also work to detect and filter out fake news or low-quality content.

Ranking: After processing, articles are ranked based on relevance to the user, the credibility of the source, the freshness of the news, and other signals. High-quality sources and freshly published news tend to rank higher, especially if they match the user’s interest profile.

Regarding whether Google News copies articles directly from mainstream media, it is crucial to clarify that Google News itself does not copy full articles from news websites. Instead, it displays headlines, snippets, and sometimes thumbnail images that link back to the original source where the full articles are hosted. These snippets and headlines are meant to give users enough information to understand the gist of the news story and decide whether to click through to the full article on the original publisher's site.

The use of snippets and linking has been a point of contention between Google and publishers, leading to legal and regulatory challenges in various countries. Publishers argue that the snippets reveal enough of the article to reduce the likelihood of a user visiting the actual website, potentially impacting their ad revenues.

However, Google maintains that its practices drive significant traffic to news websites, which can be beneficial for these outlets. In response to these challenges, Google has been working on creating licensing agreements through initiatives like the Google News Showcase, where they pay publishers for high-quality content.

Ms. Boucher emotively complains about some of the fundamental tools that search engines use to locate information and make it available. Ms. Boucher probably does not recall that locating information on the Internet and developing the tools to do so has been a technological Holy Grail. Were it not for search engines Internet-based information would be impossible to locate and access. The scraping of information, which Ms. Boucher seems to deplore, is fundamental to the way that search engines gather the necessary information to curate results.

But what is important is that neither Facebook nor Google routinely copy and make available MSM articles. Rather then provide a means by which those articles may be accessed by directing the user to the MSM website where the article is located. MSM and Ms Boucher seem to be complaining about this form of traffic redirection.

The reality is that advertisers see greater benefit and an increase in reach and frequency by utilising online advertising resources and the Platforms provide this service. Furthermore they provide it is a more targeted and efficient manner than MSM. There are several key reasons which explain why Platform based advertising is more effective than MSM, radio and TV.

Targeting Capabilities: Both Facebook and Google offer sophisticated targeting tools that allow advertisers to reach specific audiences based on demographics, interests, behaviours, and even locations. This granular targeting ensures that ads are shown to the people most likely to be interested in the product or service, increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of campaigns.

User Engagement Data: Digital platforms collect extensive data on user interactions, which helps advertisers optimize their campaigns based on real-time feedback and detailed performance analytics. This level of insight is generally not available with mainstream media advertising, where metrics are often limited to estimated reach and audience ratings.

Cost-Effectiveness: Digital advertising can be significantly less expensive than traditional media. With options for setting budget limits, cost-per-impression, or cost-per-click, advertisers can control spending more precisely. Additionally, the ability to continuously adjust ad spend based on campaign performance helps maximize return on investment (ROI).

Interactivity and Rich Media: Digital ads can include interactive elements such as videos, clickable elements, and direct links to websites or product pages. This interactivity not only boosts engagement but also facilitates immediate action, like purchasing a product or signing up for a newsletter, directly from the ad.

Global Reach: Platforms like Facebook and Google provide access to a global audience, allowing brands to reach consumers beyond their local or national markets. This is particularly beneficial for businesses looking to expand internationally without the significant cost of global marketing campaigns in traditional media.

Personalization: Digital ads can be personalized based on the user's previous online activities. For example, retargeting ads can show products a user has previously viewed but didn't purchase. This personalization generally leads to higher conversion rates than general ads broadcasted to a wide audience on mainstream media.

Speed and Flexibility: Digital campaigns can be launched, modified, or paused in real-time based on their performance or external factors. This flexibility allows businesses to react quickly to market changes or internal priorities, a stark contrast to mainstream media campaigns, which often require long lead times and fixed schedules.

Measurability and Trackability: Every aspect of a digital advertising campaign can be measured — from impressions and clicks to conversions and sales. This level of detail provides advertisers with insights to continually refine their strategies and improve their effectiveness.

Given these advantages, while mainstream media still holds value for broad brand campaigns and reaching certain demographics, digital advertising through platforms like Facebook and Google is generally more tailored, measurable, and cost-efficient, making it highly effective for a wide range of marketing objectives.

What is interesting about this is that it has not been properly nor publicly explained by MSM. And why should they? It would be the equivalent of acknowledging that their usefulness as a means of getting the message across is very limited indeed.

Yet the premise that underlies the FDNBB is that although MSM are losing effectiveness as advertising platforms, because they have depended upon advertising revenue for so long that there is a sense of entitlement to such a revenue stream. So rather than look for other means of ensuring their survival, they ask the Government to provide a solution by diverting the stream that has changed its course from MSM to the Platforms back to MSM – propping up a model that cannot survive without direct (PIJF) or indirect (FDNBB) support.

Of course questions like this either do not occur to journalists like Shayne Currie or, if they have, the answers are too unpalatable. Or perhaps there is a sense that all this is just a bit too complicated for the average reader or consumer of MSM content – that arrogance on the part of MSM whereby it is at their decree that we the people are informed.