| > Just because you can find CNN(or even MSNBC) on your TV or go to their website, doesn't address the role of FB and Google in dissemination of news. Of course it's true that FB and Google play a role in news dissemination, but it's also irrelevant to the argument the news outlets are making. They are basically saying that they should be considered the "official" news, and should get a piece of the revenue from any other organization that has a role in disseminating news. And I think that claim is nonsense. It is up to individual people to decide where they want to get their news from. If they would rather get it from Google and Facebook than the NYT or CNN, that is the NYT's and CNN's problem; they either need to up their game or go into a different business. It is not a problem that needs to be "fixed" by law. > when you name call people who disagree with you (very stupid or disingenuous), it's a good indicator, your argument doesn't have a very solid foundation It wasn't name calling, it was calling a spade a spade. I am saying that the news organizations are not actually fighting for "equality" or "fact-based journalism" in news dissemination. They are fighting to preserve the privileged position they had before the Internet destroyed it. Sorry, but I don't care. The Internet destroyed a lot of old business models and created a lot of new ones. That's how it works in the big leagues. You either adapt or you go out of business. And in any case I don't see either the NYT or CNN in any danger of going out of business, which just makes all of their complaining seem even more disingenous--it's just obvious that they aren't fighting for principle, they're just arguing that they should be allowed to siphon more money from other people's pockets into theirs, and they already have plenty of money, so I have no sympathy for them, and I certainly don't want the law to be forcing other companies to pay them money because they are supposed to be "news" outlets. To be clear, I don't have any sympathy for Google or Facebook either. I am certainly not a fan of the ad-supported business model. But that just means that none of the sides in this brouhaha are the good guys. > it does make a much more serious effort to report facts than the non-fact based media I know the NYT claims this, but I don't agree with it. As I said, the NYT is pushing a point of view just like every other media outlet. That means I can't take anything they say at face value any more than I take anything Breitbart or Fox News says at face value. So, again, I don't see them as fighting for any kind of principle of "responsible journalism". There are no responsible journalists in today's world. It's not clear that there ever have been. We just couldn't see behind their facade before. Now we can. |