Like other commodities, news is dependent upon the marketplace; if there is public demand for a product, the company that produces that product will thrive and grow.
But there are some caveats about comparing journalism to widgets. One is that the marketplace must be fair and equitable. Another is that journalism holds a particular value to democracy that goes beyond dollars and cents.
Both issues play a role in consideration of the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, which passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 14-7 vote on June 15. The legislation would give more power to media outlets in the face of competition from Google and Facebook — online entities that dominate the advertising marketplace. Notably, it has 15 co-sponsors — seven Republicans, seven Democrats and one independent.
The simple explanation: Independent media outlets (such as The Columbian) pay reporters to collect local news and write articles that inform their community — an essential function in a democracy. But when those articles appear on social media sites, digital platforms that played no role in collecting the information receive the bulk of the advertising revenue.
Under the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, publishers would have the power to negotiate terms with online platforms. If they are unable to reach an agreement, an arbitrator would ultimately determine the rates.
Similar measures have passed in Canada and Australia, where digital platforms have responded with adolescent churlishness by threatening to block news content from customers.
The platforms also have sowed doubt about legislation through third parties that receive funding from Google and Meta, Facebook’s parent company. As The Seattle Times writes editorially: “This includes nonprofits and even some journalism organizations, but they speak for only a small fraction of the news industry providing local coverage across the United States.”
In one example, according to the Times, the Local Independent Online News trade group has approximately 450 members in the United States and Canada, including some one-person blogs and newsletters. The group opposes the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, while trade associations that include a majority of the 8,000 local newspapers and TV stations in the United States strongly support the measure.
As Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., one the bill’s leading supporters, said, it “is not about whether or not you like social media. This bill is not about whether or not you like what is happening in American news media today. This bill is about creative content, that is all it is about, and whether we respect creative content and value it.”
In supporting that creative content and the efforts that produce it, lawmakers also would be supporting democracy. Since 2005, more than 2,500 U.S. newspapers have closed, and the New York Times reports: “The closures have perpetuated the problem of so-called news deserts — places with limited access to local news.”
Various studies have determined that a lack of local reporting leads to increased government corruption, lower voter turnout and fewer candidates seeking office. As Penelope Muse Abernathy, who studies the issue, said: “What that does is it feeds into a nation that is divided journalistically, and when you have a nation divided journalistically, it exacerbates our political, cultural and economic divisions.”
The Journalism Competition and Preservation Act would be one small step toward repairing those divisions.
