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
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) has been dubbed Taiwan’s “sacred mountain.” In the past few years, it has invested in the construction of fabs in the US, Japan and Europe, and has long been a world-leading super enterprise — a source of pride for Taiwanese. However, many erroneous news reports, some part of cognitive warfare campaigns, have appeared online, intentionally spreading the false idea that TSMC is not really a Taiwanese company. It is true that TSMC depositary receipts can be purchased on the US securities market, and the proportion of foreign investment in the company is high. However, this reflects the
RSS