The Australian Associated Press is a news wire service, similar to AP or Reuters.

It did not disappear because it went bankrupt. AAP had three owners, Nine, News Corp (~95% ownership between them) and SWM (Seven West Media).

This year, when Fairfax and Nine merged, there was no longer any requirement for AAP to exist in its current form. Fairfax and Nine both supplied roughly 35% of AAP's operating costs. The newly merged organisation could reroute the money spent with AAP (tens of million dollars a year) to their own in-house reporting staff. The benefit here is that the copyright to the content produced is then owned by Nine - not AAP, and the content produced would not be sold to other media organisations as well.

The whole reason for its existence was to reduce the amount of money spent by Nine and News Corp, so they could pool resources.

If it still existed today, the only benefactors would be other media organisations that acquired content from them (eg, Seven, The Guardian and News Corp)

Why should Australia's largest media company subsidy coverage for other companies?

Edit: some words and clarification

Ironic you should reference the ABC when the legislation specifically excludes the ABC from any benefit other "registered news organisations" may enjoy.

I didn't mention the government funded ABC but rather the Australian Associated Press (AAP) which is a collection of local journalists funded collectively by the large media companies on both the left and right wing.

I was referring to your reference [1].

The AU government wants to give private media a leg up, but won't allow the ABC (or SBS) to receive any moneys from Google/FB, and at the same time regularly cuts funds to both the government funded media entities.

Newscorp isn't Australian though, it was just started by one.

(a former Australian, who gave up his citizenship when it suited him better to be a US citizen)

Ironically, for tax reasons.

And yet our pollies are, inexplicably (not really), still in his pocket.

so, i'm not getting this. they take revenue, not profit offshore. profit meaning global profit. you want to tax the money they make in your country, without them first paying expenses in other countries?

so if i have developers and research in america, and software sales in australia, my australian costs are $0, and all revenue is taxable profit. yeah, that seems fair. double fair for australia.

Look up transfer pricing

it's the method i used to move capital in my small american business when i opened an office in russia. a company in another country is a separate legal entity. you charge market rates, as you would any other company. it has zero to do with my post.

the complaint is profit is taxed instead of revenue. the complaint is not valid.

Do you really believe Google makes no profit in Australia?

I understand for accounting purposes they don't. But they make a lot of money with very little expenses...

Right - they have very little in expenses in Australia. Because all the development and maintenance is in other countries. That is my entire point. So they take the market value (transfer price) of the expenses and transfer that money to countries where those expenses are incurred. They then pay for expenses related to their local offices and 2000 employees. What's left over is called profit, is taxed in Australia, and they paid $100mil of taxes on that profit last year.

Lets say you are sitting in Chicago. You create a search engine, get a thousand developers working on it. You then set up an Australian portal for that web page, on which Australian businesses buy ads. In your version, the costs for Australia are zero. In reality, those costs include the development of the search engine in Chicago.