A long conversation on Twitter recently had me thinking more about my decision – since Google announced on the 22nd of last month that it’ll likely remove its search engine from Australia – to switch to Bing.
It wasn’t a rancorous exchange, but smouldered. As can happen when people communicate via anonymous accounts over things they feel strongly about. I kept my cool and tried to invite the guy (I think it was a “he”) to come to the table and have a serious, well-intentioned conversation.
God knows we need good intentions.
Especially online.
No-one lost the argument because it finally petered out absent a flame war – so I’ll count it as a success. But it got me to thinking: what’s the difference between a corporate home page and a news website? Why ask Google to pay news organisations for the information they produce, while not paying, say, Rio Tinto or Westinghouse for similar content? Many companies make PR material using copywriters, that they then publish on their home pages. In addition, product pages often come with a good deal of useful data that can be used by someone wanting to know more about a subject.
It could be anything.
Genetic modification of food. Solar batteries. Seafood. Rice.
Governments also contribute to such debates as they publish information, as do universities and peak bodies. Commercial associations. Clubs. Any number of institutions push out relevant details about an infinite range of subjects – at least in aggregate – that comprise the Web. Why single out the news for special treatment?
It comes down to motivation.
No-one can deny the fact that news outlets want income on account of what they publish, so in many cases they have to be classed as commercial enterprises. Heck, even government-funded orgs need cash to pay the journalists and editors and other types of staff who populate their staff chart. What makes news orgs different is the public interest. A company that deals in, say, agricultural implements, has as a raison-d’etre the manufacture and sale, or distribution or hire or servicing, of specialised equipment. It does this in order to pay its employees, whose goal is to increase the profitability of the enterprise.
News orgs are a bit different because their reason-d’etre is the promotion of the health of the public sphere. We aren’t, in Australia, like China where all media is controlled by the government. We have independent bodies that produce and disseminate news because it’s necessary for the health of the polis to do so. The very fabric of democracy is at stake, not whether GE’s share price goes up 10 percent this year.
A retailer who promotes the use of reusable shopping bags on its website is similar to a news outlet in that it’s trying to do good, but its primary goal is profitability. Without demeaning its effort to promote the wellbeing of the planet, the principal focus of Woolworths or Coles is not to be a good global steward. It is to sell more lamb chops or hand sanitiser. Because people often base their purchasing decisions on things other than price or brand preference – the reputation of the retailer of manufacturer can affect their thinking when they want to go to the supermarket – companies put a good deal of effort into demonstrating that they are good social citizens. They need permission from the community to do business – a social license – and the media plays a big role in this process through the broadcasts and publications they make.
We can’t eat the news but without it our societies cannot function. They’d wither and die and an alternate type of government would spring up to take the place of the consultative and representative bodies that function to look after the wellbeing of all. I wouldn’t like that.
How about you? Do you think we should ask Google to pay for the news it publishes and that it links to advertising? Or should a closed group of people decide what’s newsworthy and what isn’t?
Comments