How To Save The News
There is still hope that California's perilous, protectionist legislation for news could be reformed, but not without effort.
I just returned from Sacramento, where I was invited to testify (video below) in opposition to an Assembly bill by Buffy Wicks, which I analyzed in depth inthis paperand latercriticizedas amended. It has passed the Assembly and the Senate Judiciary Committee. A competing bill by Sen. Steve Glazer, which I alsocriticized, just passed the Senate.
So now there are two bills in play for a long, hot summer of negotiation in Sacramento-not versus each other but versus a counterproposal from Google, which I'll describe below. The good news is that Wicks made clear in her testimony before mine that her bill-though well along in the process-is a work in progress, and she is open to change. She and Glazer appeared together in the hearing to show unity of purpose.
I continue to have problems with both bills. The Assembly bill is a tax on accessing" content-thus a tax on reading. The Senate bill is a tax on gathering data-thus a tax on information. They each would benefit the hedge funds that are destroying the 18 of the top 25 newspapers in the state that they control. If anyone should be held responsible for the death of newspapers and taxed for it, it should be the hedge funds. Instead, the bills blame Google and Meta for news' decline and hold them singularly responsible for its fate. The Assembly bill requires an unwieldly process of arbitration. They are each constitutionally questionable and could spend years in courts before a penny is paid.
A negotiated agreement would be preferable. Google has proposed an alternative involving unused tax credits and a $30 million contribution to a fund for journalism. In my testimony, I say that I favor a fund, like the Civic InformationConsortiumin New Jersey. Rather than distributing money indiscriminately to hedge funds and out-of-state media conglomerates as both bills would, an independently administered fund could grant money based on goals and merit, with accountability. Rather than feeding corporate bottom lines with no assurance of supporting journalism, a fund could support specific efforts such as KQED's quality news- and ad-sharingnetwork; it could foster the creation of support networks like theNJ News Commonsat Montclair State; it could invest in news startups such as Lookout Santa Cruz, which justwon a Pulitzer; it could most importantly support coverage for underserved communities.
The negotiation should not-cannot-be just with Google, for it is ridiculous to hold a single company responsible for the fate of another entire (generally mismanaged) industry. Who else might join in such a fund is a crucial question. Before I testified, I reached out to Meta, which still insists that if a bill passes it will pull news off its platforms as it did in Canada, where-despite spin from publishers' lobbyists-the situation is nowdire. Meta is also ending the deals it was forced to make under Rupert Murdoch's legislative gunpoint in Australia,threateningto ban news there. That would be catastrophic in California, for I fear it would give Meta an excuse to take down news across the U.S. Passage of one of these bills requiring payment would also lead to the death of voluntary contributions made through the Google News Initiative, which has done much good.
I hope that Meta can be convinced (pressured by its home-state politicians) to contribute to a fund and bring news back to Facebook and Instagram just when democracy needs it most. I'd also like to see Amazon and Microsoft contribute.
It shouldn't just be tech companies taking responsibility for the health of the news and information ecosystem. It'd be great if Press Forward, the journalism megafund, would partner in a California fund, along with any of the state's many billionaires. State and local governments could contribute as well, devoting large shares of their advertising budgets to quality local news media.
On the other side of the table, negotiations must not be monopolized by legacy newspaper companies and their lobbyists. The hedge funds' papers are zombies. TheL.A. Timeshas a market penetration in L.A. County under five percent, but I hear that its billionaire owner thinks he's owed an absurd payoff from Silicon Valley. They hardly matter anymore. As I told one legislator, you need no longer be intimidated by the people who bought ink by the barrel for they now buy it by the pint. Any discussion must include Black newspapers, Latino news organizations, not-for-profit news media,independent news organizations, and digital startups, all of whom should step up to be heard.
At the end of my testimony, I urged the legislators to foster collaboration between news and technology, rather than divorce. California of all jurisdictions-as the headquarters state of the internet-should set an example for journalism and technology working together, especially as AI looms on the horizon (and so does fascism).
Google and other tech companies can help in other ways. I'd like to see them develop statewide and regional ad networks for news and specifically for Black media, Latino media, and so on. They could collaborate on development of appropriate uses of AI in news (not to manufacture clickbait). Google and Meta have supported training for journalists in product and audience development (full disclosure: at my former school); I'd like to see that continue and grow.
How much better it would be to encourage such collaboration instead of extracting a pound of digital flesh from tech companies to reward the lobbying of hedge funds and investors.
Who knows what will come out the other end of the legislative sausage extruder, for there are many other cards to be played, including what I think is terrible legislation trying toregulate AIfrom the wrong end and privacy.
For more details on the Assembly bill, see an excellent and fair analysis of from the counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committeehere.
And here is what I had to say in my three minutes in Sacramento.
Jeff Jarvis is a journalism professor and author. This article was originally published to his BuzzMachine website, and reposted here with permission.