Mediaboss Marketing

The companys strategy, role in society and governance are open questions

YEAH, OK, WHY not? Ill just give it a try. With those words Sergey Brin abandoned academia and poured his energy into Google, a new firm he had dreamed up with a friend, Larry Page. Incorporated in 1998, it developed PageRank, a way of cataloguing the burgeoning world wide web. Some 21 years on, Messrs Brin and Page are retiring from a giant that dominates the search business. Alphabet, as their firm is now known, is the worlds fourth-most-valuable listed company (see article), worth $910bn. In spite of its conspicuous success, they leave it facing three uncomfortable questionsabout its strategy, its role in society and who is really in control.

Silicon Valley has always featured entrepreneurs making giant leaps. Even by those standards Google jumped far, fast. From the start its search engine enjoyed a virtuous circlethe more people use it and the more data it collects, the more useful it becomes. The business model, in which advertisers pay to get the attention of users around the world, has printed money. It took Google just eight years to reach $10bn in annual sales. Its peak cumulative losses were $21m. By comparison, Uber has incinerated $15bn and still loses money.

Today Alphabet is in rude health in many respects. Its search engine has billions of users, who find it one of the most useful tools in their lives. One recent study found that the typical user would need to be paid $17,530 to agree to forfeit access to a search engine for a year, compared with $322 for social-media sites, such as Facebook. Alphabet cranks out colossal profits. Many pretenders have tried to mimic the Google approach of having a vast customer base and exploring network effects. Only a few, including Facebook, have succeeded at such a scale.

There are uncertainties, however. Take strategy first. Other tech giants have diversified away from their core businessAmazon began in e-commerce, for example, but is now big in cloud-computing. In China Tencent has shifted from video games to a huge array of services. Alphabet has not stood still: it bought YouTube in 2006 and shifted to mobile by launching Android, an operating system, in 2007. But it still makes 85% of its sales from search-advertising. A big bet on driverless cars has yet to pay off. As the firm matures, it should start paying a dividend.

The second question is how closely the company might end up being regulated. Alphabets monopoly in the search business has led to worries that it may squeeze other firms unfairly. Its huge store of data raises privacy concerns. And because it is a conduit for information and news, its influence over politics has come under ever more scrutiny. All this augurs much tighter regulation. Alphabet has already paid or been subject to $9bn in fines in the EU, and in America politicians on both sides of the aisle support tighter rules or, in some cases, a break-up. If it were to be regulated like a utility, profits could fall sharply.

The last question is who will be in control. Messrs Page and Brin famously sought parental supervision in 2001 and hired an external chief executive. Both founders will now relinquish any executive role, handing the reins to Sundar Pichai, a company stalwart. Yet dual-class shares mean they will still control over 50% of the firms voting rights. This structure is popular in Silicon Valley. But there is little evidence that it ages well. Of todays digital giants, two have so far faced successionMicrosoft and Apple. They have prospered partly because their founders or their families did not retain voting control after they left the scene. Alphabets founders should forfeit their special voting rights and gradually sell their shares. Their firm faces deep questionsbest to give someone else the freedom to answer them.

This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "Who will control Alphabet once Sergey Brin and Larry Page are gone?"

Go here to see the original:
Who will control Alphabet once Sergey Brin and Larry Page are gone? - The Economist

Nigeria's First Lady Aisha Buhari has come under fire after she said that Nigeria should enforce stricter social media regulations in the same that China does. Her comments come at a time when the Nigerian government is still deliberating on the passing of the controversial "Protection from Internet Falsehood and Manipulation Bill" which many Nigerians believe will be used to silence them.

According to the BBC, Buhari was speaking at the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs General Assembly and National Executive Council Meeting this past weekend."If China can control over 1.3 billion people on social media, I see no reason why Nigeria cannot attempt controlling only 180 million people," Buhari said confidently. She also added that, "We should either fasten our seat belt, get up and do the needful or we will all regret it very soon."

Since last month, Nigerians have been protesting against the proposed bill under #SayNoToSocialMediaBill on social media. The bill was initially proposed by Senator Muhammadu Sani Musa of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) who cited that it would protect the country against the dissemination of hate speech and extremist ideologies online, as had been the case with terrorist groups including Boko Haram. Musa said that, "Individuals and groups influenced by ideologies and deep-seated prejudices in different countries are using internet falsehood to surreptitiously promote their causes, as we have seen in Nigeria with the insurgency of Boko Haram."

Many Nigerians on social media were quick to tell Buhari that if she wanted to compare Nigeria to China in terms of social media regulation, she should also extend her comparisons to broader politics including corruption, human rights violations and unemployment in the country.

More here:
Nigeria's First Lady Calls for Heightened Control of Social Media in the Country - OkayAfrica

This photo taken on June 4, 2019 shows the Chinese flag flying over the Juma mosque in the restored old city area of Kashgar, in China's western Xinjiang region.

Greg Baker | AFP | Getty Images

Chinese official media excoriated the United States and called for harsh reprisals in editorials on Thursday after the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation requiring a stronger response to Beijing's treatment of its Uighur Muslim minority.

The commentaries follow warnings from China on Wednesday that the legislation could affect bilateral cooperation, including a near-term deal to end the two countries' trade war.

A front-page editorial in the ruling Communist Party's People's Daily newspaper said the passage of the U.S. legislation "harbors evil intent and is extremely sinister".

"Underestimating the determination and will of the Chinese people is doomed to fail," it said.

By a vote of 407 to 1, the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday approved the Uighur bill, which would require the Trump administration to toughen its response to China's crackdown in Xinjiang, a region in China's far west.

The bill still has to be approved by the Republican-controlled Senate before being sent to U.S. President Donald Trump to sign into law.

The White House has yet to say whether Trump would sign or veto the bill, which contains a provision allowing the president to waive sanctions if he determines that to be in the national interest.

U.N. experts and activists say China has detained possibly one million Uighurs in mass detention camps in Xinjiang.

China says the camps are part of an anti-terror crackdown and are providing vocational training. It denies any mistreatment of Uighurs.

The English-language China Daily called the bill a "stab in the back, given Beijing's efforts to stabilize the already turbulent China-U.S. relationship".

"It seems an odds-on bet that more (sanctions) can be expected if the latest approval for State Department meddling goes into the statute books," it said.

The English-language edition of the Global Times, a nationalist tabloid published by the People's Daily, said China should be prepared for a "long-term battle with the U.S."

The editorials echoed comments by Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying, who said on Wednesday that "any wrong words and deeds must pay the due price."

Official commentary also took aim at the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, recently signed into law by Trump.

The act requires the U.S. State Department to certify at least annually that Hong Kong retains enough autonomy to justify favorable U.S. trading terms, and threatens sanctions for human rights violations.

A front-page editorial in the overseas edition of the People's Daily framed the bill as a U.S. attempt to use Hong Kong to contain China, calling such a move "idiotic nonsense".

"The Chinese government will in no way allow anyone to act wilfully in Hong Kong, and must take effective measures to prevent, contain and counteract external forces from interfering in Hong Kong affairs."

Hong Kong has been wracked by nearly six months of often violent protests, with demonstrators demanding greater democratic freedoms in the Chinese city.

Continue reading here:
Chinese state media blasts US bill that pushes for tougher response to Muslim detainment camps - CNBC

Peter Oborne is right to call out Conservative bias in the BBCs election coverage (In this election, the BBC has let down those who believe in it, Journal, 3 December) and likely to be right too in his assessment that the reasons for the bias are institutional, beyond the prejudices of a few well-known reporters. Put simply, the BBC tends to be more sympathetic to the status quo and the government of the day than political change.

Yet behind all that lies the hard work of thousands of professional BBC employees out there reporting and producing news on a wide range of matters that the printed media no longer often does.

As with the gender pay gap at the BBC, perhaps its time for those at Broadcasting House to listen more to their employees and their trade unions and less to the politicians of the moment.Keith FlettLondon

Fran Unsworth, the BBCs director of news and current affairs, writes: Impartiality is precious to us. Well protect it (Journal, 4 December). To claim that the rightwing bias catalogued by Peter Oborne was a couple of editorial mistakes is frankly risible. Her argument that conspiracy theories are in vogue just will not wash. I note that her defence of the BBCs news coverage concentrates on the few weeks of this general election campaign, but I have observed rightwing bias in a number of current affairs programmes for many years. And we all remember Steve Bells brilliant IF strip highlighting rightwing bias on the Radio 4 Toady programme, which featured Nick Robinson.

Last Sunday the BBC did a U-turn and allowed Boris Johnson to appear on the Andrew Marr show, claiming it was in the public interest. Marr lost control of the interview and the only interest served was that of the Conservative party.

If Unsworth wants to salvage some of the BBCs tattered reputation she needs to ensure that the promised interview between Andrew Neil and Boris Johnson takes place before the general election; otherwise the accusation of Tory bias will be reinforced.Geoffrey Carpenter Worthing, West Sussex

Fran Unsworth seeks to justify serious flaws in reporting at the BBC with bluster at a highly critical time in our politics. She cites three instances of error all of which favoured the prime minister.

First, in the excellent Question Time leaders debate, there was mocking laughter at the response of Boris Johnson to a question about trustworthiness. This was later edited out of footage for a lunchtime news bulletin. A clumsy one-second edit, she says.

Second, coverage of the cenotaph remembrance service where the PM made a mistake laying a wreath and looked foolish was replaced by archive footage of him at the 2016 service on BBC Breakfast. We are fanciful to consider this significant, she says.

Third, the inability of the corporation to ensure that all the party leaders are interviewed by Andrew Neil before next weeks election in order to be impartial. Neil exposed flaws in all the party leaders reasoning with corresponding headlines in the press the next day. Why has the PM not been interviewed? Unsworth says the logistics are highly complex. Not good enough from our public service provider.Nancy HardyEastergate, West Sussex

I take issue with what Fran Unsworth wrote in claiming impartiality at the BBC. To my mind, she is making the mistake of equating quantity with quality.

If there are many hours of programming but without rigorous challenging of politicians and political statements then the BBC becomes part of the propaganda machine. It is falling behind Channel 4 in the quality of its interviewing. Part of the defence is that there is information produced by the BBC online.

On checking both the Policy Guide and Reality Check which Unsworth cites, I was less than impressed. The analysis of the Conservative top priorities lists 50,000 more nurses and 20,000 more police officers both discredited claims. This is not a simple editorial mistake. Need one say more about our diminishing trust in the BBC?Stephen HawkinsEdinburgh

Fran Unsworth seemingly derives satisfaction from the fact that the BBC is criticised by both left and right in almost equal volumes. But this is due to the fact that the BBC overrepresents the centre at the expense of both left and right.

This is conveyed, for example, by BBC political journalists frequent use of the word moderate, with its overtone of approval, to describe those in the centre of politics.

This was fine when the centre embodied a national consensus. But at a time of political polarisation, the BBC and other public service broadcasters need to widen their ideological lens if they are to fulfil Unsworths vision of seeking to represent the nation in its entirety.Prof James CurranGoldsmiths, University of London

In 1984, I was appointed head of the BBC Bristol Network Production Centre. It was the time of the miners strike. Every morning we received a shoal of letters complaining about the BBCs coverage. They fell into two broad categories: those who thought the BBC was a lackey of the rightwing establishment, and those who thought it was a subversive, lefty organisation. Every morning, we would sort the letters into two piles. And every morning, the piles were exactly the same height.

These were people who had been watching exactly the same programmes. I rest my case.John Prescott ThomasBristol

Join the debate email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Read more Guardian letters click here to visit gu.com/letters

Do you have a photo youd like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and well publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition

Go here to read the rest:
The BBC cannot dodge accusations of Tory bias - The Guardian

The billionaire medias opposition to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn so far in this election has been full on. But now, the Daily Mails owner has bought yet another newspaper, concentrating the countrys media into even fewer hands. And Corbyn wasnt about to let this go unnoticed, tweeting:

An adviser to Conservative leader Boris Johnson recently spoke of the big newspapers attacking Labour full on from the off in this election. That has meant boosting anti-Corbyn bigotsandwarhawks. And theBBC has receivedparticularcriticism. Academic research, meanwhile, shows newspapers have been pushing a clearanti-Labour position so far.

This is no surprise, though. Because Corbyns taking on the ultra-richto get justice for the general population. And as the Media Reform Coalitions (MRC) 2019report highlighted before the latest sale:

just three companies (News UK, Daily Mail Group and Reach) dominate 83% of the national newspaper market (up from 71% in 2015).

Around 80% of online media, meanwhile,sits with just five companies (News UK, Daily Mail Group, Reach, Guardian and Telegraph). And as the MRC stressed:

Concentrated ownership creates conditions in which wealthy individuals and organisations can amass vast political and economic power and distort the media landscape to suit their interests.

With billionaire owners dominating, Britains media environment is clearly broken. And thats incredibly dangerous. Because it has the power to shift the balance in the Tories favour. The Conservative Party, meanwhile, has received over 50m from around a third of Britains billionaires since 2005; and by 2023/24, it will reportedly have gifted these elites tax breaks and corporate giveaways to the tune of about 100bn since 2010. Its also no secret that Rupert Murdochs News UK, the Daily Mail Group, and the Telegraph are all bitterly opposed to Corbyn and his progressive politics.

Fortunately, many voters are fully aware that the mainstream media doesnt even pretend to treat Corbyn fairly:

With all of this in mind, meanwhile, its no surprise that Corbyn believes in the importance of independent media. The Labour leader recently expressed his strong support to The Canary, saying:

I absolutely welcome the role of independent media in the election and in our public discourse and our public life.

This is in part because, as he said, independent media outlets dont follow the herd instinct of the mainstream media.

Despite the opposition of the billionaire media and its political allies, Corbyns Labour has over 500,000members and is offeringbold,sensiblepoliciestoempower the majority of the population rather than the extremely wealthy few. Its manifesto also promises major media reform. Thats why the ultra-rich areafraid of Corbyn: because he represents real change. And thats why our billionaire media is working so hard to stop him. But on 12 December, voters have a real chance to shut that dodgy operation down once and for all.

Featured image via Sophie Brown

See more here:
Billionaires just took even greater control of the UKs media. Corbyn had the perfect response. - The Canary