Pre-Conference Topic

Decades of research has demonstrated inequalities and imbalance in international news flows. Such research focused on news agencies, radio and 24-hour international TV news channels as a site for the projection of state soft power (Mattelart, 2014; Schiller, 1976); indeed, since their inception, news agencies have been close to political and economic power (see for AFP, Lefebure, 1996). Nonetheless, regardless of the size, political and economic influence of those global media, they remain small players compared to US tech giants like Google and Facebook (Ihlebaek & Schanke Sundet, 2021).

The platformization of news refers to the transformation of the platform-publisher relationship (Nielsen & Ganter, 2018), and is an approach which asks questions about the datafication of audiences, spaces for public deliberation and the differential responsibilities and accountability of the stakeholders involved (van Dijck et al., 2019). Platforms are not involved in news production, and news distribution is only (a tiny) part of their business. Described as a “corporate takeover of the digital world” (Smyrnaios, 2018), an oligopoly of platforms offers users access to information personalized and mediated by algorithms. Previous research about online news diversity demonstrates that more could mean less, where the abundant flows of news are contrasted with the lack of original news produced (Paterson, 2007; Rebillard & Loicq, 2013). The online flow of news from this view seems superfluous despite the promise of the internet to democratize and freely expand access to information and culture.

How are platforms contributing to this dynamic when they mediate news? The question of algorithmically-mediated visibility and access to journalism has become central (Bucher, 2018) whereas advertising platforms became the matchmakers between declared, supposed and inferred tastes of audiences on one side and news supply on the other side. Privately owned infrastructures of public life, platforms exercise a tremendous market and political power on public speech and political expression.

How accountable are tech giants regarding the construction and destruction of media economies and cultural industries? The power of platforms has led to calls for regulation to increase compliance with intellectual property laws), privacy laws (such as GDPR), antitrust, tax avoidance, and the dissemination of disinformation. A capability to disrupt news flow on a continental scale became clear in 2021 when Facebook and Google were targeted by Australian legislation designed to ensure payment for the news they distribute.

References

Bucher T. (2018) If . . . Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ihlebaek K.A. & V. Schanke Sundet (2021), “Global platforms and asymmetrical power: Industry dynamics and opportunities for policy change”, New media & society, 1-18.

Lefébure A. (1992), « Havas, les arcanes du pouvoir », Grasset, 410p.

Mattelart T. (2014), « Les enjeux de la circulation internationale de l’information », Revue française des sciences de l’information et de la communication, 5. DOI: 10.4000/rfsic.1145

Nielsen R. K. and S. A. Ganter. 2018. “Dealing with Digital Intermediaries: A Case Study of the Relations between Publishers and Platforms.” New Media & Society 20 (4): 1600–17.

Paterson C., “International news on the internet: Why more is less”, The International Journal of Communication Ethics, vol. 4, n° 1/2, 2007, p. 57-66

Rebillard F. & M. Loicq (eds.) (2013), Pluralisme de l’information et media diversity. Un état des lieux international, De Boeck.

Schiller H. I. (1976), Communications and Cultural Domination, New York, M.E. Sharpe.

Smyrnaios N. (2018), Internet Oligopoly. The Corporate Takeover of Our Digital World, Emerald Publishing, 191p.

Van Dijck J., D. Nieborg, and T. Poell. 2019. “Reframing Platform Power.” Internet Policy Review 8 (2): 18.