Facebook and Canberra clash over content, Super Mario to Italy's rescue, energy troubles in Texas and re-evaluating Britney Spears
15 - 21 February 2021
Hello and welcome!
Would you like to learn more about what's happening in foreign affairs, business and entertainment? Deep Dive will help you analyse some of the key topics and offer insights on issues beyond the headlines.
OZ VS. ZUCK
In a strange turn of events, Australia finds itself locked in a battle with the world’s largest social media network over the value of news.
“It’s not okay to unfriend Australia,” said the country’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, after Mark Zuckerberg decided to suddenly block all news content on Australia’s Facebook site on Thursday.
The tech giant made a preemptive strike against proposed legislation that would require major digital platforms to directly compensate news companies for linking to their published material. Canberra says the Silicon Valley juggernauts leverage their positions to dominate the online advertising market, which hurts the fortunes of Aussie media outlets. In an alleged effort to level the playing field, Morrison’s government wants the digital platforms to negotiate and pay a fair price for journalism.
However, Facebook says its members freely choose to post news on the network in order to increase subscriptions and grow their audience. Therefore, the Australian bill would penalise Facebook for content it didn’t explicitly ask for or produce.
As a result of Zuckerberg’s abrupt action, Facebook users in Oz can’t view, upload or share any news content, and media organisations currently have totally blank pages. Numerous non-journalistic outlets, such as Cricket Australia, the Bureau of Meteorology and Queensland health department, were also shut down, sparking widespread criticism. Facebook later apologised and promised to restore profiles that were “inadvertently impacted”.
Instead of deterring Morrison, Facebook’s response has strengthened Canberra’s resolve to pass the law this month - and allies like Canada are preparing to move forward with a similar bargaining code.
Perhaps sensing the shift in attitude, Google swiftly cut deals with the Guardian, Australia’s Nine Entertainment and Seven West Media, and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp this week. It’s worth noting that as a search engine, Google is heavily reliant on the news business.
Australia’s state intervention is certainly a fascinating test case. But the matter is complex and there are a multitude of angles to consider. For instance:
Is this an artificial way of supporting the news industry? Will companies actually use the additional money to invest in more staff and better editorial output?
To what extent was the bill drafted to boost the revenues of Murdoch’s empire (which generally favours Morrison’s Liberal Party)?
Don’t Facebook and Google’s referrals already drive traffic to the top news organisations?
Should publishers be informed about updates to Facebook and Google’s algorithms to adjust how their news content is packaged and presented?
What does the planned law mean for smaller, independent outlets that use Facebook to amplify their reports?
Will the Australian media code further encourage Facebook to stamp out misinformation and ‘fake news’?
What are your thoughts on the controversy?
CALLING IN THE TECHNOCRAT
When Mario Draghi was sworn in as Italy’s prime minister on 13 February, he became the country’s 14th leader in 30 years. By comparison, Germany has had three chancellors, France five presidents and the UK six prime ministers since 1990.
Rome’s revolving door of premiers is hardly surprising. Italy’s administrations often collapse due to their fragile coalition agreements and constant squabbling between the various parties.
But Draghi isn’t a career politician, nor was he chosen by Italian voters. Instead he was specifically invited to form “a government of national unity” to address the immediate challenges of the coronavirus vaccine drive and the country’s painful recession.
Draghi is what’s known as a technocrat, i.e. a professional with technical expertise. As the former head of the European Central Bank (ECB), the 73-year-old is seen as a safe pair of hands to manage €210 billion (US$254 billion) of special EU funds to resuscitate the Italian economy and introduce reforms.
For the moment, global investors, EU chiefs and Italians are optimistic. Although it may seem odd to cheer for an unelected outsider, Draghi boasts a solid track record. His proactive measures to prop up the eurozone at the height of the sovereign debt crisis famously earned him the nickname “Super Mario”.
This valuable experience is probably why Draghi was able to win support from a broad spectrum of Rome’s parliamentary parties, including the right-wing populists and eurosceptics. And outside of Italy, many are crossing their fingers that “Super Mario” will help maintain stability on the continent when Angela Merkel resigns in September.
But the appointment of yet another technocratic PM (Draghi is the fourth in three decades) is stirring debate about Italy’s tendency to break with democratic processes when things turn ugly.
Analysts say the elevation of technocrats represents a failure of the system to provide solutions. Additionally, technocrats don’t need to be responsive to a particular constituency, which could erode trust in the ballot box.
Then there are the cynics (or realists?) who believe that bringing in an ex-central banker for two years is basically a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. Italy’s status as “the sick man of Europe” predates the pandemic. The G7 member has long struggled with a stagnant economy, massive debt burden, lingering north-south divide and the prevalence of criminal organisations.
SNOWED UNDER A PILE OF FALSE NARRATIVES?
Fierce winter storms pummelled swathes of the US this week, bringing subzero temperatures, historic snowfall, and extensive disruption.
Texas was hit especially hard by the deep freeze and, at one point, approximately four million homes and businesses in the state were without power.
Needless to say, icy conditions are highly unusual in the American South. But while a degree of chaos was expected, the magnitude of the outages is alarming (President Joe Biden approved a major disaster declaration for Texas on Saturday, authorising federal funding and assistance).
So why has the energy capital of the US been scrambling to keep its local utilities going? Well, the Lone Star State has a separate electricity grid to the rest of the country to avoid oversight from federal agencies. This set up normally functions fine, however, it also means Texas technically can’t import power from its neighbours in a crisis situation.
As scores of Texans suffered in the cold and dark, several Republican politicians pinned the blame on renewable energy sources. In an interview with Fox News, Texas Governor Greg Abbott suggested that frozen wind turbines and the loss of solar power were the causes of the blackouts. “This shows how the Green New Deal would be a deadly deal for the United States of America,” he concluded.
That narrative has gained traction among conservative commentators but fact checkers and engineers are refuting those accusations. According to official data, the Texas grid is largely dependent on gas- and coal-fired plants. The state’s natural gas providers, in particular, couldn’t cope with the low temperatures (which even froze their fuel wells and generators) and soaring consumer demand for heating.
Although some wind turbines did go offline from the ice, wind power constitutes a fraction of Texas’s winter electricity supply. Furthermore, experts say wind turbines can be designed to withstand Arctic conditions - just look at Denmark, Sweden and Alaska.
The problem is Texas’s soft touch regulations. Policy observers told the Washington Post, Texas Tribune and other outlets that the state’s grid operators prioritise cheap prices over long-term investments and storage facilities. Consequently, the energy infrastructure wasn’t sufficiently “winterized”, despite government recommendations to do so in a 2011 report.
Of course, severe cold snaps in the US’s southern belt fall under freak weather events. But scientists say the polar vortex underscores how vulnerable communities are to the effects of climate change. The fear is that this week’s storm could be a preview of what may happen more frequently in the future.
CAUSE CÉLÈBRE
The fate of Britney Spears is receiving column inches again; however, this time it's for a different reason. Following the release of the New York Times documentary Framing Britney Spears, fresh questions are being raised about the pop star's treatment at the hands of the press, the entertainment industry and the US courts.
While the film covers the Grammy Award winner’s phenomenal success and subsequent breakdown, the main focus is the conservatorship that has allowed Britney’s father, Jamie Spears, to be in control of her career and finances for more than a decade.
Framing Britney Spears explores the longevity of the guardianship and the cruel celebrity stalking (primarily targeting young women) of the early 2000s. It’s a harsh and upsetting reminder of the price of fame in our 24/7 media culture.
Director/producer Samantha Stark does a commendable job of sketching out the bigger picture with archive material, new interviews and input from the fan-led #FreeBritney movement. But it’s hard to draw a definitive conclusion since we still know very little about Britney’s own opinions and wellbeing. The wall of silence from her family and management is also deafening.
Full disclosure: I interviewed Britney Spears in September 2016 at the Apple Music Festival in London. It was one of her rare overseas performances during her Las Vegas residencies. As the documentary states, access to Britney is extremely hard to come by and the entire encounter was strictly regulated - Britney's team was a rather uncomfortable presence in the green room.
Framing Britney Spears is available to watch on Hulu in the US and NOW TV in the UK.
Catch you next Sunday! Have a great week ahead.
Stay curious, Sara x