Ownership

The European Union’s antitrust watchdog has handed down a string of big decisions in recent years against top US technology firms, in what might look to US companies and officials like a trend by Brussels to train investigations on large American companies.

EU officials deny any bias. “We don’t go against Google because it’s an American company but because it’s a company abusing its dominant position in our market.… If it were in Brazil, we wouldn’t care,” a senior EU official said, referring to the EU’s €2.42 billion ($2.71 billion) fine June 27 against Google for unfairly favoring its shopping ads in its search results. EU competition officials are, to a large extent, constrained by antitrust rules and legal precedents when making decisions against any companies, be they American, European or otherwise. But unlike Washington, where U.S. enforcers need to prove their cases before a judge, the EU’s competition directorate acts as prosecutor, judge and jury in competition cases—and only needs to convince itself. Experts say American tech companies are currently getting increased scrutiny because they happen to dominate the industry. This comes at a time when one of the top priorities for the European Commission, the bloc’s executive body, is to ensure the EU’s common market functions more efficiently online and across borders.

Google suddenly grew up at midday June 27 — and the way it conducts business in Europe and probably further afield will have to catch up fast.

Likely more important in the immediate future for Google, which rejects the findings and says it may appeal, the decision will serve as a model for regulators across the globe closely scrutinizing Google, from Seoul to Brasilia, and it will bolster those in the U.S. trying to prod domestic regulators into action. “As matters now stand, the Commission is the primary regulator of internet services in the Western world,” said David Cantor, a Brussels-based technology lawyer. In addition, the decision hurts Google’s otherwise stellar brand and reputation. Its “search franchise is built upon the notion that it is an honest broker of the world’s information,” said Scott Cleland, a founder of consultancy Precursor, an adviser to Google rivals and a trenchant critic of Google. That damage can work in significant and long-lasting ways. For example, Microsoft’s aggressive tactics and antitrust problems made it less attractive to some of the best engineers and university talent, who opted to join nicer companies — like Google.

Fox News has hired Rep Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) to be a contributor for the cable news channel after the congressman ends his House term early on June 30. Rep Chaffetz will start his role at Fox on July 1, according to a statement from the network. "In this role he will offer political analysis across FNC and FOX Business Network’s (FBN) daytime and primetime programming," the network said.

The Utah congressman and head of the House Oversight Committee announced in May that he he would resign from Congress to pursue other opportunities. Shortly after, Washingtonian reported that he'd been telling fellow lawmakers he planned to join Fox News.

The April 2 edition of the Sunday New York Times, where the paper features its best journalism, included a six-page special section, “Women Today,” pegged to a summit in Manhattan a few days later. What wasn’t in any of the stories was the fact that the Times itself owned a minority stake in the conference.

Although the paper’s own standards call for transparency in this area, the section didn’t disclose the paper’s financial interest. These sections, often paired with Times-backed live events, are a growing part of the business model of what has been the newspaper of record, and just one example of the extent to which the newsroom and the company’s marketing department now work together in an effort to generate new sources of revenue. The editor of these sections meets once a week with the advertising department to discuss possible projects, while the advertising studio of the Times acts as a matchmaker between reporters and sponsors. In one sense, such initiatives might be seen as the new normal, as newspapers like the Times scramble for creative approaches in an industry whose finances are growing creakier by the day. But the Times is a unique beast, in journalism and within its own midtown Manhattan tower, and a bevy of new initiatives being rolled out to buoy the company’s bottom line worry journalists at a paper that has long maintained a firm separation between its news and business operations. Continuing job cuts in the newsroom, even as the business side of the paper continues to grow, have made those tensions even more acute.

President Donald Trump attacked Amazon June 28, claiming incorrectly that it owns The Washington Post in a scheme to dodge “internet taxes.” In fact, Amazon doesn’t own the newspaper. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos bought it himself. And while there isn’t a federal “internet tax,” as President Trump contends, Amazon has worked out arrangements with states to collect sales taxes on consumers’ online purchases — all the while seeking a national solution that many Republicans long have opposed.

President Trump, however, still took aim at Amazon in a tweet that sought to decry the Post’s political coverage as “fake news” — his latest in a series of attacks on both the tech company and the newspaper dating back to the 2016 presidential campaign. "The #AmazonWashingtonPost, sometimes referred to as the guardian of Amazon not paying internet taxes (which they should) is FAKE NEWS!" the President tweeted.

[Commentary] In 2016, Pew's "State of the Media" report noted a circulation decline at “a handful of historically prominent black papers.” But that decline is not uniform. “Because so few of these papers have regularly audited circulation figures…it is difficult to acquire industry-wide measures,” according to the report. (The Richmond Free Press has been audited annually since 1993.)

As black communities risk being overlooked by many newsrooms, so do black newspapers risk being overlooked or undervalued by advertisers. During the next year, I’ll study family, legacy and the viability of black newspapers in America as a Knight-Wallace fellow. When I first returned to the Richmond Free Press, I felt consumed by questions: How might we keep the paper relevant, and financially sound? Those questions evade easy answers, but they’ll power my research, and they sustain my conviction that no community deserves to be left behind.

[Regina H. Boone is a staff photojournalist for the Richmond Free Press, published in her hometown of Richmond, Virginia.]

Snap-happy tourists have long posed next to the billboard-sized “Like” sign outside Facebook’s headquarters, in awe of seeing the real-life company behind the app. But it has taken until 2017 — and a political situation the tech industry sees as a crisis — to get Silicon Valley truly interested in the real lives of its users.

So...what apps did people describe as their friend? Amazon, Uber and — a big surprise — the Bible. The Bible app allows users to choose their preferred version, bookmark key passages and sign up for daily quotes. An instant-access Bible may be the only on-demand app that Silicon Valley failed to dream up. It was created by religious organisation Life.Church, which has locations all over the south and is now on 250 million devices worldwide.

The proposed $13.7 billion merger of Amazon and Whole Foods is primed to set off a massive lobbying effort in Washington. Amazon has been moving into new markets and seeking ways to deliver products faster to customers, including a drone fleet for local deliveries, making the Whole Foods deal just the latest example of its growing ambitions. Some industry analysts say the deal should face a relatively smooth path to federal approval because Whole Foods only represents a 1.2 percent share of the $800 billion grocery market, while Amazon only has a 0.2 percent share. Under antitrust law, regulators examine whether a deal would eliminate competition and whether consumers, through price changes and other factors, would be harmed. Amazon, which serves as both a traditional retail outlet and a platform for other sellers, has metrics more complex than just any other store.

Sen Susan Collins (R-ME) told the Department of Justice that she wants closer scrutiny of AT&T’s merger with Time Warner. In a letter to acting Assistant Attorney General Andrew Finch, Collins expressed concern with a consolidation of power that could lead to “reduced programming choices and higher prices for consumers.” “The risk is real that the acquisition of such a prominent content producer by a distributor of AT&T’s size could allow it to dramatically reduce consumer choice in favor of its new in-house brand,” Sen Collins wrote, noting that no other premium network like Showtime or Starz is also owned by distributors. “I’m also concerned that this merger could encourage and enable AT&T and DirecTV to raise content costs to harm pay-TV competitors,” she continued.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors 2016 Annual Report details the agency’s activities and growing impact around the world. As detailed in the report, the BBG networks have played a critical role in supporting the pursuit of freedom and democracy, providing balanced election coverage for voters in emerging and fragile democracies; life-saving information to the hundreds of thousands of people trying to flee oppression, war and economic strife; and clear, unbiased and uncensored news to people living under authoritarian regimes and violent extremists. BBG networks are news leaders, covering stories left untold in environments that lack press freedom and fostering civil dialogue in places overwhelmed with disinformation. They are leading channels for information about the United States as well as independent platforms for freedom of expression and a free press.