Australia

Here's a case i hope helps, and is illustrative,

*Think of a newstand, an older style one. Painted dark green, a little kiosk with two stands either side, lets say street side in New York.

The operator of the newstand sets the papers, magazines, et al, out along the racks. Its general practice to face the most eye-catching part of each out towards the eyes of passers-by.

A potential customer stops walking and looks along the rack for a minute, looks at the Washington Post sitting there, maybe The Economist, but settles on the New York Times.

That customer has seen the front page of the Washington Post, maybe even perused The Economist a bit, but they settled on the New York Times.

In that situation are The Economist, and Washington Post entitled to a share of that newstands revenue from selling the New York Times? Afterall that customer did read the front covers, and then a little more of one of the rejected papers.*

Facebook and Google, et al act as today's equivalent of the newstand. The BLUF is no different from any other eye catching material editors/marketers put on their publications/products to generate sales. A marketer is trained to make a sale as enticing as possible, the enticement, in this case the BLUF, is not the product.

The news business might suck at the moment, but the news media bargaining code is not the solution.

Round peg, square hole.