Can you put a price on journalism? A new Columbia University study says you can and U.S. publishers are owed nearly $14 Billion from Google and Meta. The number comes from both companies’ total advertising revenue.
Meta’s disbursement would be $1.9 Billion (6.6%). Google’s payout would be much higher at $10-$12 Billion (17.5%) because the study found a majority of Google users preferred the site with news. This information comes as several countries, like Australia and Canada, have passed legislation requiring payments to publishers. Other countries, including the United States, are looking to pass legislation requiring Big Tech companies to compensate outlets for carrying their news content.
According to Pew Research Center, 86% of Americans are “often getting news” on their smartphone, computer, or other digital devices. Of those surveyed, half get news from social media. However, revenue flow for many news outlets is thinner than the newsprint that arrives at your door. NewsRated reports profits for newspaper outlets in 2021 were $1.44 Billion, a 12.54% drop since 2017. Their main source of funding comes from online ads.
While the extra payday from Big Tech would benefit most if not all outlets, is it ethical to be paid by the platform that is distributing your product? Especially when they can and have censored news at their own discretion.
In August, Meta stopped sharing news content in Canada because of passed legislation requiring the social media company to pay news outlets for its journalism. In late November, Canada and Google agreed the technology company would pay $100 Million annually to news publishers in the country. Final rules for the Great White North’s legislation will be released on December 19.
In the U.S., take a look at what social media giants did to the New York Post after their initial article on Hunter Biden’s laptop. The outlet was barred from accessing their Twitter account unless the tweet was deleted. Twitter and Facebook both suppressed reposts of the story. Not only did this story turn out to be true, but it took legacy media outlets 769 days to verify its legitimacy. If conservative outlets weren’t banging the drum on this story, would it have been swept under the rug completely?
The other issue with Big Tech paying news outlets, can and would it selectively negotiate with outlets whose content aligns with the values of Big Tech? Keep in mind Google is already facing an antitrust lawsuit for allegedly maintaining a monopoly over the online search market. Could they unilaterally decide which media outlets they pay, which news content they carry, and would they allow news, like the antitrust lawsuit, to populate on their search engine?
If Big Tech controls what you see, does their bias now replace journalistic integrity? Furthermore, if the delivery of news content becomes subject to the law of supply and demand versus the true utility of news content, to inform the public, is the media’s intended function (being the 4th estate) now completely null and void?
One country might have some of the answers, Australia. Legislators Down Under pushed through legislation for Google and Meta to pay media outlets in 2021. By all accounts it’s labeled as a ‘success.’
More than 30 outlets signed deals with Google and Meta for compensation. One year after the legislation was enacted Australia’s The Guardian added 50 journalists. Non-Disclosure agreements (NDAs) however don’t let the public know how much outlets are being paid by Big Tech. Critics of the legislation believe these NDAs may leave smaller outlets unable to compete with mainstream media.
One important note, legislators are leaving X, formerly Twitter, out of the compensation discussion. They lost $75 Million in revenue after Elon Musk bought the platform. This begs the question, is there really value in Big Tech and social media, or are you, the user, being sold to advertisers and potentially next to news outlets?
Regardless, Musk’s purchase taught us a few things, all social media serves as a “de facto public town square.” With that analogy, Google is now your library. Research is no longer about what you look at, it’s who is telling you what to look at. All algorithms operate like this. Even if fray and fringe news outlets strike a deal with Big Tech they still could be selectively censored due to a designed lack of clicks. Legislation like this in U.S. is still awhile away at the Federal level.
Instead, States are trying to take matters into their own hands. In California, a Democratic State Assembly Member introduced a bill requiring tech companies to pay a 70% usage fee when advertising is sold next to news content. Can these payments uphold the integrity of journalism? Or does the price of journalism cost journalists their integrity?
Krystina Alarcon Carroll is a news media columnist and features writer for Barrett Media. She has experience in almost every facet of the industry including: digital and print news; live, streamed, and syndicated TV; documentary and film productions. Her prior employers have included NY1 and Fox News Digital and the Law & Crime Network. You can find Krystina on X (formerly twitter) @KrystinaAlaCarr.
