Rupert Murdoch wants Facebook to pay publishers, which is adorable

Should Twitter pay me for my tweets?

Sure! I post great stuff, which is why people go on Twitter — to find great stuff. I, and everyone else who post good stuff, should get paid.

Is Twitter going to pay me for my tweets? Hahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha. No.

Yet that exact situation is what Rupert Murdoch proposed for Facebook. On Monday, the media mogul released a statement calling for Facebook to begin paying "trusted publishers."

"If Facebook wants to recognize ‘trusted’ publishers then it should pay those publishers a carriage fee similar to the model adopted by cable companies," Murdoch wrote.

Murdoch knows what he's talking about when it comes to cable TV. Cable TV companies (like MTV or ESPN) make stuff and then receive money (almost always a per-subscriber payment) called a "carriage fee" from the cable companies (such as Comcast or Verizon) that own the actual pipes that bring you service.

In Murdoch's analogy, Facebook is playing the role of Comcast, except it's not paying the MTVs and ESPNs of the internet for the content.

That's not fair, Murdoch claimed.

"The publishers are obviously enhancing the value and integrity of Facebook through their news and content but are not being adequately rewarded for those services. Carriage payments would have a minor impact on Facebook’s profits but a major impact on the prospects for publishers and journalists," he wrote.

Murdoch is right about all the details, but a businessman as savvy and experienced as he is must know he's wrong about the main point: Facebook isn't paying publishers because it doesn't have to.

Publishers large and small have no leverage over Facebook. If MTV decides today to stop putting its stuff on Facebook, nobody will notice. However, if MTV disappeared off cable systems, plenty of people would notice. This is the power Facebook wields, and it is close to absolute.

In such a world, even executives like Murdoch — still considered one of the most powerful individuals in all of media — have few options other than statements like these, which are generally meant to push media coverage (hi!) against Facebook.

Murdoch knows this, and he knows this is a particularly good time to keep pushing. Facebook continues to take fire for how it has dealt with news, both real and fake. It recently announced that it would be limiting the reach of news in its News Feed, but also said it would begin surveying users to get an idea of which publishers they trust.

Murdoch has been banging this drum for years with regard to Facebook and Google.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Facebook has in some ways been tip-toeing to paying trusted publishers for their content. It cut checks to some companies for Facebook Live efforts (Mashable was a partner), and is paying them for Facebook Watch video (Mashable is a partner). The relationships are different than those in cable TV, but it's more than Facebook was offering just a few years ago.

That said, Mark Zuckerberg isn't about to start cutting checks to every publisher on its platform for content its already getting for free — and in some cases getting money for. With the recent changes to the News Feed algorithm, publishers now have to decide if they want to pay Facebook to reach its massive audience.

Zuckerberg didn't become a gajillionaire by turning Facebook into a cable company; Murdoch didn't become a semi-gajillionaire by misreading the power dynamics in media. They know the situation, and any money that Facebook does end up throwing to publishers should be found under its balance sheet as crisis communications (they can probably include the Facebook Journalism Project there, too).

Murdoch will be waiting a while for his check from Facebook, just like I'll be forever waiting on my check from Twitter.