Newspaper Association Of America Complains That Comedian John Oliver Failed To Solve Newspaper Biz Model Problem

from the maybe-your-priorities-are-a-little-off dept

You may have seen that on Sunday, John Oliver's main bit this week was about the collapse of the local newspaper business. It's a pretty typical John Oliver piece -- and definitely on a topic that we've discussed many times in the past -- media business models. However, we didn't see much of a need to write about it... until the Newspaper Association of America decided to whine about it, mainly complaining that Oliver (1) didn't offer any solutions and (2) mocked companies that are trying, no matter how ridiculous their efforts are:

However, other than encouraging people to "pay for" more news, he doesn't offer any answers. More particularly, he spends most of the piece making fun of publishers who are just trying to figure it out. Whatever you think of the name "tronc" and that company's announced growth strategy, at least they are trying new things and trying to figure out how to create great news journalism in the digital era. John Oliver doesn't seem to have any better ideas.

The fact is that we are in a transitional phase within the entire industry. People want, need and consume more hard news than they ever have. The core demand for the product isn't decreasing at all, and based upon that we will find our way to the far shore where the industry is thriving and growing once again. But in the meantime, there is going to be a lot of experimentation and evaluation of new business models. Some experiments will work and some won't, and our VP of Innovation, Michael MaLoon is committed to keeping you up-to-date on what is happening on that front. But making fun of experiments and pining away for days when classified ads and near-monopolistic positions in local ad markets funded journalism is pointless and ultimately harmful.

I would just ask Mr. Oliver to spend more time talking about what the future of news could be, and less time poking fun at publishers who are trying to get there.

This is pretty ridiculous. First of all, much of the mocking was over the Tribune Company's ridiculous rebranding as "tronc," and specifically the absolutely ridiculous "tronc employee video" the company put together, that I still am partially convinced is a parody of the kind of idiocy big newspapers put out these days to pretend they get technology. "Artificial intelligence!" "The future of journalism!" "Tech startup culture!" "Evolving, changing -- the fun part!" "Optimization group!" "Feed it into a funnel and then optimize it!" "Maximize all the time." "Monetize video!" "The role of tronc is to transform journalism -- from pixels to Pulitzers." I mean, the video is inherently mockable. It's cringeworthy bad. I would have been disappointed if Oliver hadn't included it in his story. It's that bad.

And, really, despite the fact that we -- among many others -- have argued that Oliver and his team do real journalism at times -- at its core, his show is about comedy. Of course he's going to mock stupid stuff. Why shouldn't he? Expecting him to offer a "solution" is pretty silly. Whining about a comedian making fun of your failures to actually truly evolve seems like it should be fairly low down on the list of things the NAA should be focused on these days. If it's looking to comedians for solutions, and complaining when they don't provide any, perhaps the NAA itself should be spending a bit more time exploring how its members can evolve and adapt.

Filed Under: business models, complaints, john oliver, newspapers
Companies: naa, newspaper association of america

Newspaper Association Thinks FTC Should Force Readers To Be Subject To Godawful Ads And Invasive Trackers

from the please-let-us-continue-to-screw-our-audience dept

So, it's come to this. After battling back against ad-blocking by guilting or forcing people into whitelisting sites -- rather than taking a good look at their terrible ad inventories, intrusive trackers, or reprehensible practices -- the press is turning to the FTC in hopes of having the government decide how you can surf the web. (h/t EFF)

The crux of the complaint [PDF] is various practices deployed by ad blockers that the Newspaper Association of America (NAA) considers to be anti-competitive or dishonest. But in its run-up to the actual complaints, the NAA makes some seriously stupid assertions.

Adblockers undermine the ability of publishers to continue to provide free or reduced-price content on the Internet because they undercut publishers’ ability to finance enterprise journalism, and they threaten the livelihood of journalists and other content creators.

This assertion continues to scapegoat ad blocking for many publications' decision to force readers to play "find the content" when visiting their sites. As user ad blindness eventually rendered banner ads invisible, the response has been to escalate intrusion, via new ad delivery methods like popunder/popups, autoplay video ads, pervasive trackers, or escalating encroachment of ads into the "content" area. If ad blocker usage is more prevalent, publishers really have no one but themselves to blame.

And there's nothing out there that suggests the only way a publication can remain profitable is by assaulting users with ads and tracking them all over the internet. But that's the narrative publishers have chosen because it's simpler to make users conform to their wishes than it is to cede ground to site visitors' best interests.

From there, the NAA's narrative gets even worse. In deriding "free-rider technology," the NAA defends its use of invasive trackers by implying that all content -- whether it's ads or the stuff site visitors actually want to see -- is equal in its eyes.

By preventing publishers from identifying repeat visitors and making these offers to them, content blockers harm consumers.

"Content blockers." If that's a slip, it's a Freudian one. This suggests those behind this letter to the FTC consider advertising to be just as worthwhile a use of bandwidth and user attention as the actual journalism buried underneath it.

In the NAA's eyes, the real villain here is "deceptive" ad blockers.

Ad-blocking companies argue that consumers should use their software to “opt out” of the online advertising ecosystem, either because of concerns with privacy or the data use represented by digital advertising. But as a review of the practices of adblocking companies discloses, consumers do not “opt out” of an ecosystem by using ad-blockers. Instead, they “opt in” to a deceptive new environment that does not adequately disclose its practices to consumers.

The supposed "deception" the NAA refers to is things like AdBlock Plus selling companies spaces on its "whitelist." Then it has the audacity to make claims about the darkish shade of ad blockers' kettles by claiming any information about these built-in whitelists is buried in the terms of service. Burial of crucial details under several pages of fine print is SOP for 99.9% of the internet -- including (especially) the same tracking software the NAA says is crucial to the survival of the industry.

The NAA also claims that evading paywalls -- if enabled by ad blockers -- is an "unfair method of competition." Considering how easy it is to evade most paywalls (via referral links, Google searches, going "incognito," etc.), it seems rather disingenuous to claim the automation of this process is somehow a violation of trade laws. For that matter, the complaint offers no proof that any popular ad-blocking extension actually offers this "service." (There are extensions written solely for that purpose, however.)

The complaint also takes issue with "replacement" services that substitute bad ads with better ads or offer micropayments to sites in exchange for blocking their revenue generators. The NAA insists these, too, are deceptive and should be kicked of the 'net by the FTC.

But most worryingly, the NAA wants internet users to be forbidden from taking steps to protect their privacy.

Some ad-blockers evade metered subscription services and paywalls by preventing publishers from identifying repeat visitors and making offers to consumers about their subscription services…

While it doesn't specifically name any apps or extensions that act in the interest of users' privacy, the wording used implies the use of IP-address obscuring options (VPNs, Tor) along with script blockers and software like the EFF's Privacy Badger are similarly unwelcome in its plan for the future.

What the NAA wants is an internet that operates on its terms. It wants to continue to deploy shitty ad inventories and allow users to take the bandwidth hit, all the while shadowing them across the web in hopes of shoving even more ads in their faces. There's no hint of a compromise in this complaint. It wants the FCC to force the web to bend to the NAA's will. At no point does it even consider the ramifications of this action. It's pure self-interest, disguised as a concern for poor consumers who have voted to opt-out of ad onslaughts by using "deceptive" ad blockers.

Filed Under: ad blockers, ads, business models, felony interference with a business model, ftc, newspapers, privacy, tracking
Companies: naa, newspapers association of america

Appeals Court Realizes Hot News Makes No Sense; Dumps Injunction On TheFlyOnTheWall

from the hot-news-loss dept

"Hot news" was pretty much dead a few years ago. The court-created doctrine, which resulted in a weird quasi-intellectual property on factual information about a century ago, hadn't been used for years and many people had assumed that it was pretty much gone. However, old legal doctrines die hard and, a few years back, some Wall Street firms sought to revive it, claiming that the website theFlyOnTheWall.com violated their "hot news" rights by accurately reporting on how those Wall Street firms were rating stocks. That's factual information and not protected by copyright, but the firms claimed it undermined their business models via hot news... and the lower court agreed, issuing an injunction.

Thankfully, an appeals court has dumped all of that, claiming that hot news is preempted by federal copyright law and that there's nothing wrong with reporting on factual information. The court mainly relies on the famous NBA v. Motorola case, which found that basketball scores and stats were facts and not protected by copyright or hot news. Using the same rules, the court finds that copyright wipes out any "hot news" in this case as well.

We conclude that applying NBA and copyright preemption principles to the facts of this case, the Firms' claim for "hot news" misappropriation fails because it is preempted by the Copyright Act. First, the Firms' reports culminating with the Recommendations satisfy the "subject matter" requirement because they are all works "of a type covered by section 102," i.e., "original works of authorship fixed in a... tangible medium of expression." 17 U.S.C. § 102. As discussed above, it is not determinative for the Copyright Act preemption analysis that the facts of the Recommendations themselves are not copyrightable. See NBA, 105 F.3d at 850. Second, the reports together with the Recommendations fulfill the "general scope" requirement because the rights "may be abridged by an act which, in and of itself, would infringe one of the exclusive rights' provided by federal copyright law," Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d at 716 (citing Harper & Row, 723 F.2d at 200), i.e., "acts of reproduction, performance, distribution or display," id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Third and finally, the Firms' claim is not a so-called INS-type non-preempted claim because Fly is not, under NBA's analysis, "free-riding." It is collecting, collating and disseminating factual information -- the facts that Firms and others in the securities business have made recommendations with respect to the value of and the wisdom of purchasing or selling securities -- and attributing the information to its source. The Firms are making the news; Fly, despite the Firms' understandable desire to protect their business model, is breaking it. As the INS Court explained, long before it would have occurred to the Court to cite the First Amendment for the proposition:

[T]he news element -- the information respecting current events contained in the literary production -- is not the creation of the writer, but is a report of matters that ordinarily are publici juris; it is the history of the day. It is not to be supposed that the framers of the Constitution, when they empowered Congress "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" (Const., Art I, § 8, par. 8), intended to confer upon one who might happen to be the first to report a historic event the exclusive right for any period to spread the knowledge of it.

The court also distinguishes the classic "hot news" case (INS) by noting that in that case, the competing firm was taking AP news, rewriting it, and pretending it was its own. That's not what's going on here, where ratings are simply being aggregated.

This is an excellent ruling, though I doubt we've seen the end of "hot news" yet. There may still be appeals, and there are a few other such hot news cases out there. But it's nice to see the judges toss this one out.

Filed Under: copyright, facts, first amendment, hot news, reporting
Companies: afp, ap, belo, gannett, mcclatchy, naa, ny times, scripps, theflyonthewall, time, washington post

Newspapers To Court: We Don't Care About TheFlyOnTheWall, But Please Don't Take Away Our Hot News

from the they-will-regret-this dept

Yesterday we wrote about Google and Twitter's amicus brief in the infamous FlyOnTheWall hot news case, and the folks over at the Associated Press were kind enough to send over a link to the amicus brief from a huge coalition of newspapers. Basically, every big US newspaper or newspaper organization signed on to this one, including the Associated Press, AFP, the NY Times, the Washington Post, Gannett, McClatchy, Belo, Scripps, Time, and the Newspaper Association of America (just to catch everyone else). Considering that the AP has been leading the charge to bring back hot news, you can probably guess where this one is going: The short summary? "We don't care about TheFlyOnTheWall or Barclays or this specific case, but we're scared to death that you might make a ruling that says the hot news doctrine should go away."

I'm still sort of amazed that any serious news organization supports the hot news doctrine, because it's almost guaranteed to come back and bite them if it is regularly used again. All of the newspapers above rely on rewriting news from other publications to some extent, whether they admit it or not. If they really support this, they're going to run into trouble themselves, even if they're apparently unwilling to admit it. It's incredibly short-sighted.

Also weird is the claim that these newspapers "rely" on hot news today. They don't. Sure, the hot news doctrine has technically been around for about a century, but it's barely been used at all in the last few decades. It was, for all intents and purposes, a dead doctrine that many considered not worth keeping around (pdf). To claim that these organizations have relied on the hot news doctrine is ridiculous, because it's barely been showing up in court until recently.

Either way, it looks like lots of parties who are concerned about "hot news" have realized that TheFlyOnTheWall case has become ground zero for whether or not "hot news" is actually allowed.

Filed Under: hot news
Companies: afp, ap, belo, gannett, mcclatchy, naa, ny times, scripps, theflyonthewall, time, washington post

Wait, Is The Newspaper Business Thriving Or Falling Apart?

from the depends-on-who-you-talk-to-apparently dept

It would appear that the folks in the newspaper business don't quite have their talking points set. Yesterday, we showed the letter from the Newspaper Association of America all about how the newspaper business was supposedly thriving despite what you may have heard. But clearly, not everyone in the industry agrees. A whole bunch of folks have sent in the Ars Technica article about the AP's supposed plans to go after sites that copy their articles, but we'd avoided posting it -- because there really weren't many new details beyond what they'd said before. However, reader Mark pointed to a rather interesting (and surprisingly honest) quote from the AP about why it wants to crack down on sites reposting some of its content:

"We need the money. The industry is falling apart."

So, on the same day, the NAA claims that the newspaper industry is thriving and profitable... and the AP insists its running out of money and the industry is collapsing. It would be great if, I dunno, one of these reporters could maybe dig into the actual numbers to figure out what's actually happening. Or is that not what the press does?

Filed Under: failing, journalism, newspapers, thriving
Companies: associated press, naa