全球数字领主与媒体政策私有化:澳大利亚媒体谈判准则

IF 1.5
B. Brevini
{"title":"全球数字领主与媒体政策私有化:澳大利亚媒体谈判准则","authors":"B. Brevini","doi":"10.1080/13183222.2023.2207427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"After two decades of regulatory vacuum, powerful digital platforms such as Google and Meta/Facebook, also known as the “Digital Lords” (Brevini 2020), have faced growing criticism worldwide. They are accused of possessing excessive economic, political, and ideological influence while evading public accountability. Although there have been calls to address their monopolistic market dominance, such as antitrust measures to break their stranglehold on data, the most tangible interventions have focused on policy tools to make the Digital Lords contribute to journalism. With governments hesitant to allocate public funds for public interest journalism, policymakers in various countries are exploring avenues to make these wealthy and tax-avoiding Digital Lords pay for the news they distribute. The “Journalism Competition and Preservation Act” is presently being deliberated in Congress in the United States, with the objective of aiding small and mid-sized news organizations in their negotiations with digital platforms for fair compensation for the utilization of their content. The European Union has implemented a copyright reform granting press publishers the right to be remunerated by Digital Lords for the use of newspapers and magazines. One widely discussed policy tool in this regard is the Australian “News Media Bargaining Code.” This article examines the successes and failures of the code, adopted a year and a half ago, in addressing Australia's journalism crisis and its pressing issues of media diversity and news scarcity. Ultimately, it argues that the Australian Media Bargaining Code exemplifies the progressive privatization of media policy.","PeriodicalId":93304,"journal":{"name":"Javnost (Ljubljana, Slovenia)","volume":"30 1","pages":"268 - 283"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Global Digital Lords and Privatisation of Media Policy: The Australian Media Bargaining Code\",\"authors\":\"B. Brevini\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13183222.2023.2207427\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"After two decades of regulatory vacuum, powerful digital platforms such as Google and Meta/Facebook, also known as the “Digital Lords” (Brevini 2020), have faced growing criticism worldwide. They are accused of possessing excessive economic, political, and ideological influence while evading public accountability. Although there have been calls to address their monopolistic market dominance, such as antitrust measures to break their stranglehold on data, the most tangible interventions have focused on policy tools to make the Digital Lords contribute to journalism. With governments hesitant to allocate public funds for public interest journalism, policymakers in various countries are exploring avenues to make these wealthy and tax-avoiding Digital Lords pay for the news they distribute. The “Journalism Competition and Preservation Act” is presently being deliberated in Congress in the United States, with the objective of aiding small and mid-sized news organizations in their negotiations with digital platforms for fair compensation for the utilization of their content. The European Union has implemented a copyright reform granting press publishers the right to be remunerated by Digital Lords for the use of newspapers and magazines. One widely discussed policy tool in this regard is the Australian “News Media Bargaining Code.” This article examines the successes and failures of the code, adopted a year and a half ago, in addressing Australia's journalism crisis and its pressing issues of media diversity and news scarcity. Ultimately, it argues that the Australian Media Bargaining Code exemplifies the progressive privatization of media policy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93304,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Javnost (Ljubljana, Slovenia)\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"268 - 283\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Javnost (Ljubljana, Slovenia)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2023.2207427\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Javnost (Ljubljana, Slovenia)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2023.2207427","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在经历了20年的监管真空之后,谷歌和Meta/Facebook等强大的数字平台,也被称为“数字领主”(Brevini 2020),在全球范围内面临着越来越多的批评。他们被指控在逃避公众责任的同时,拥有过度的经济、政治和意识形态影响力。尽管有人呼吁解决他们的垄断市场主导地位,比如采取反垄断措施来打破他们对数据的垄断,但最切实的干预措施集中在政策工具上,让数字领主为新闻业做出贡献。由于各国政府在为公共利益新闻业分配公共资金方面犹豫不决,各国的政策制定者正在探索让这些富有且避税的数字贵族为他们发布的新闻付费的途径。美国国会目前正在审议《新闻竞争与保护法》,目的是帮助中小型新闻机构与数字平台进行谈判,以获得对其内容使用的公平补偿。欧盟实施了版权改革,赋予新闻出版商使用报纸和杂志获得数字领主报酬的权利。在这方面,一个被广泛讨论的政策工具是澳大利亚的《新闻媒体谈判准则》。本文探讨了一年半前通过的该准则在解决澳大利亚新闻危机及其媒体多样性和新闻稀缺等紧迫问题方面的成功与失败。最终,它认为《澳大利亚媒体谈判法》体现了媒体政策的逐步私有化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Global Digital Lords and Privatisation of Media Policy: The Australian Media Bargaining Code
After two decades of regulatory vacuum, powerful digital platforms such as Google and Meta/Facebook, also known as the “Digital Lords” (Brevini 2020), have faced growing criticism worldwide. They are accused of possessing excessive economic, political, and ideological influence while evading public accountability. Although there have been calls to address their monopolistic market dominance, such as antitrust measures to break their stranglehold on data, the most tangible interventions have focused on policy tools to make the Digital Lords contribute to journalism. With governments hesitant to allocate public funds for public interest journalism, policymakers in various countries are exploring avenues to make these wealthy and tax-avoiding Digital Lords pay for the news they distribute. The “Journalism Competition and Preservation Act” is presently being deliberated in Congress in the United States, with the objective of aiding small and mid-sized news organizations in their negotiations with digital platforms for fair compensation for the utilization of their content. The European Union has implemented a copyright reform granting press publishers the right to be remunerated by Digital Lords for the use of newspapers and magazines. One widely discussed policy tool in this regard is the Australian “News Media Bargaining Code.” This article examines the successes and failures of the code, adopted a year and a half ago, in addressing Australia's journalism crisis and its pressing issues of media diversity and news scarcity. Ultimately, it argues that the Australian Media Bargaining Code exemplifies the progressive privatization of media policy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信