SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh! dept.
New York Times CEO warns publishers ahead of Apple news launch
Apple Inc is expected to launch an ambitious new entertainment and paid digital news service on Monday, as the iPhone maker pushes back against streaming video leader Netflix Inc. But it likely will not feature the New York Times Co.
Mark Thompson, chief executive of the biggest U.S. newspaper by subscribers, warned that relying on third-party distribution can be dangerous for publishers who risk losing control over their own product.
"We tend to be quite leery about the idea of almost habituating people to find our journalism somewhere else," he told Reuters in an interview on Thursday. "We're also generically worried about our journalism being scrambled in a kind of Magimix (blender) with everyone else's journalism."
Thompson, who took over as New York Times CEO in 2012 and has overseen a massive expansion in its online readership, warned publishers that they may suffer the same fate as television and film makers in the face of Netflix's Hollywood insurgence.
See also: Apple secures deal with WSJ for paid Apple News service, NYT and Washington Post opt out
Apple reaches deal with Vox for upcoming Apple News subscription service, report says
Apple is on a hardware-launching bonanza ahead of its big TV announcement
Apple teams with media literacy programs in the US and Europe
Previously: Apple in Talks to Create "Netflix for News" Subscription Service
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday March 25 2019, @04:58PM
Why not both? Corporations publish their own press releases, non-profits have their own newsletters and news websites...lots of organizations have motivation to invest in private news outlets, and as long as we've still got free speech*, the more propaganda the state news feeds, the greater their incentive will be to push back with their own couter-publications. It doesn't have to be one or the other. We still (for now...) have great technologies like RSS. You can have you US State Department feed right beside your Amnesty International feed. And maybe an "OPEC News Coalition" feed beside that too if you're into that kind of thing.
But there's some news that's important even though nobody really has an interest in publishing it. That's where it would be best for government news services to step in to fill the gap. The stuff that's highly controversial and likely to be twisted into propaganda is probably going to be covered from a half dozen different angles no matter what.
*And if we don't have free speech, the question of who is publishing the news becomes entirely irrelevant.