It is the same story around the world. Faced with an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation online, declining trust in media and government, and the proliferation of “news deserts,” governments, philanthropists and publishers are desperately looking for ways to fund quality journalism.
In 2021, Australia broke new ground by passing the News Media Bargaining Code, compelling Alphabet (Google) and Meta (Facebook) to pay media outlets for news content shared on their platforms. This model has since gained traction worldwide, with Canada adopting its own version of the Australian law (C-18) in June and South Africa launching an investigation into the digital advertising market. Countries like Indonesia, Japan, New Zealand and Switzerland have all considered similar bills, and Brazil’s ambitious Fake News Law, which was thwarted in May, has recently been revived.
Meanwhile, in the US, the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, aimed at allowing news publishers to engage in collective bargaining, was introduced in March by US Senator Amy Klobuchar and has since stalled. In June, California’s State Assembly passed the California Journalism Preservation Act, which would require large tech companies to share their advertising revenues with news outlets. However, the bill has been put on hold until next year.
Illustration: Tania Chou
In opposing these laws, tech giants like Google and Facebook have downplayed the importance of news content on their platforms, asserting that it can be dropped easily since audiences do not really need it. Google has also resorted to paying publishers directly, hoping that a modest sum will discourage media companies from supporting platform remuneration laws.
Our recent working paper shows that such deals do not capture the full value of the news content produced by US publishers. Our conservative estimate is that Facebook and Google should pay US news outlets about US$14 billion annually to use their content. Our study shows that Facebook owes publishers US$1.9 billion a year while Google owes US$10 billion to US$12 billion. We also include a detailed explanation of our methodology and invite others to build on and refine it.
Over the past 20 years, Google and Facebook’s advertising revenues have soared while the advertising income that traditional media rely on to fund public-interest news and investigative journalism has declined. That is not an accident. Advertising revenue shifted to platforms as individuals started consuming news on US$ platforms directly, giving advertisers a large and stable user base in the process. While Google and Facebook argue that news outlets should be grateful that platforms drive traffic to their sites, our findings suggest otherwise.
Our study builds on a large body of economic research that shows that when two parties come together, they create value. Large digital platforms and news-content creators provide complementary services that generate more economic value when used together than separately. News media supply tech companies with high-quality content that keeps their users engaged and encourages them to return to their platforms. Similarly, the platforms provide news publishers with popular, easy-to-use channels through which to disseminate news content to a larger audience.
At present, Google and Facebook dominate US digital advertising markets, allowing the two major platforms to siphon virtually all of the economic value created by online news content. Moreover, as the US Department of Justice and 38 states’ attorneys-general argue in their ongoing antitrust lawsuit against Google, the company was able to maintain its dominant position in digital advertising markets by monopolizing key technologies.
Our findings underscore the glaring disparity between what Google and Facebook pay news publishers and what they would pay if they were not powerful monopolies. Our approach to determining fairer compensation is simple, transparent and compelling. Government officials are already incorporating it into policy discussions, and publishers worldwide can use our work in their own negotiations with Google and Facebook.
Our methodology can also be useful to publishers who wish to learn how their content is being used by large language models like ChatGPT-4. However, regardless of how technology evolves, the basic principle underpinning the media system should remain the same: If you reap massive profits by using news content, you should pay for it.
Haaris Mateen is assistant professor of finance at the University of Houston. Haris Tabakovic and Patrick Holder are senior associates at The Brattle Group. Anya Schiffrin, director of the technology, media and communications program at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, contributed to this commentary.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS