Two years ago, the Australian parliament passed the News Media Bargaining Code, which forced Meta Platforms Inc (Facebook) and Alphabet Inc (Google) to compensate media companies for news content shared on their platforms. The law has been a remarkable success, with Australian media receiving more than AU$200 million (US$132.9 million) annually from Big Tech firms.
With financing for local news plummeting, the number of journalism jobs declining and innovative policies to sustain the production of high-quality news urgently needed, the Australian media code has attracted significant attention.
Google and Facebook have siphoned vast amounts of advertising revenue from legacy media outlets, and lawmakers around the world increasingly recognize that major tech platforms have a responsibility to support public-interest journalism.
Illustration: Louise Ting
With little fanfare, other countries — including Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, the UK and the US — have initiated their own versions of the Australian legislation.
International Fund for Public Interest Media director of portfolio Pierrick Judeaux said that the media code has become part of Australia’s “soft power.”
Over the past two years, Australian officials have traveled the world to promote it, cautioning their peers that Google and Facebook would lobby hard, spend heavily and play dirty to prevent such bills from spreading.
Google, in particular, has ramped up its efforts to block such laws. Smaller and online-only media in many countries worry that the code would primarily benefit large, traditional publishers. Capitalizing on this skepticism and seeking to create divisions, Google has secured private deals with a select group of Canadian publishers and is poised to begin formal negotiations with publishers in South Africa in the coming weeks.
To receive financial support from the company, publishers must promise to refrain from seeking additional compensation in the event that new laws are enacted.
However, Google has gone further, promoting the narrative that only major outlets benefit from the Australian media code. This claim is bogus: Large Rupert Murdoch-owned outlets and small media organizations in Australia have profited from the law.
Country Press Australia, an industry association representing more than 100 local and regional news outlets, and the Minderoo Foundation have collaborated with small outlets to facilitate collective bargaining.
In a review of the new legislation, the Australian Treasury revealed that 30 funding agreements have been signed, with some covering dozens of publications.
While the media code is not perfect, it is a valuable tool that should be strengthened rather than attacked. One of the criticisms leveled at the Australian law is that tech companies’ payments to media outlets are kept secret.
Canada’s version of the code, if enacted, would improve transparency by requiring news organizations to disclose this information to regulators, but not to the general public. The Canadian bill also establishes eligibility criteria, requiring outlets to meet editorial standards and employ a minimum of two full-time staff members. Qualified outlets would have to submit annual reports to the regulating body.
Future iterations of the media code should include provisions mandating that deals between media organizations and tech companies be made public, and that outlets that receive funding from major tech companies like Google and Facebook use the funds to improve news coverage.
Information about how digital platforms calculate the value of the news they disseminate and how they determine their payment schedule should be publicly available. This level of transparency is crucial to ensure that news publishers are treated fairly.
Smaller outlets must be included in these codes, as media advocacy organizations such as the UK’s Public Interest News Foundation, South Africa’s National Editors’ Forum and Brazil’s Association of Digital Journalism have emphasized. Governments must refrain from consolidating the codes into omnibus bills that impose limitations on freedom of expression and enable the state to censor news content.
Brazilian journalist Natalia Viana recently said that Google’s tactics have alienated its supporters and triggered a backlash against the company.
Confronted with the growing popularity of the Australian media code, Google has resorted to threats, indicating that it would stop carrying news content if required to pay for it and telling journalists that it would withdraw financial support from media outlets.
Brazilian authorities are investigating the company for potential “abusive practices” related to its lobbying efforts against Brazil’s version of the bill.
As recently as this month, just before the vote on the bill, Google changed its search results so that people entering queries got results maintaining that the proposed law would ruin the Internet.
It has been frustrating to witness the limited coverage of Google and Facebook’s hardball tactics. The secretive negotiations between the platforms and news organizations in South Africa, where desperate publishers are rushing to reach an agreement with Google because they cannot afford to wait for the legislative process to play itself out, illustrate the depth of the crisis.
Financing quality journalism requires collective effort, and it is crucial that Big Tech platforms do their part.
Given that Google and Facebook have resisted copyright payments, sought to avoid paying taxes, appealed fines, and lobbied vigorously to influence lawmakers and journalists, it is unclear whether they would be willing to accept any funding scheme.
However, after years of reaping massive profits from disseminating quality journalism produced by others, it is high time that they stop stalling and pay up.
Anya Schiffrin is a senior lecturer at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. Copyright: Project Syndicate
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS