As a media publisher, we are likely expected to take a position against Meta and other social media platforms who have disrupted the industry in recent years and stripped revenue from traditional media sectors.
Last week, Meta responded to the proposed News Bargaining Incentive scheme, which the Federal Government released for public consultation in late April.
It didn’t miss, slamming the concept as “discriminatory” and “economically incoherent”.
“We encourage any government considering a similar approach to look carefully at what this model actually represents. A strong, independent media cannot be built on punitive taxes, levied on foreign companies, with no connection to the value exchanged,” it argued.
Under the Incentive, digital platforms operating significant social media or search services are encouraged to do commercial deals with eligible news publishers as the preferred model, with generous offsets provided to reduce their liabilities.
Platforms who elect not to negotiate commercial deals with news publishers will need to pay a charge as a proportion of their revenue, with any charges collected to be distributed back to the news media sector.
As Meta and the Government prepare for a war on this subject, the truth is, as it tends to be on issues like this, somewhere in the murky middle.
The government should without question be commended for attempting to hold tech and social media companies accountable, particularly when they strip revenue from publishers based in Australia, who provide significant employment and importantly, information to communities.
There is a responsibility on government at its core to ensure that its residents are properly informed on important issues, can participate in democracy and civic engagement, and have access to emergency information in times of crisis.
Therefore it is right to be involved in this space, attempting to find workable solutions that result in social media companies and traditional media publishers being somewhat on the same page. Or at least reading from the same book.
The government is trying to incentivise Meta and the like to enter into commercial arrangements with media companies, but in the past this has generally stumbled as a realistic solution to the troubles facing publishers in Australia in relation to declining advertising revenue.
Tech companies have typically done deals with larger publishers, with smaller publications – often the only media source in a particular community – left out of the discussion.
For example back in 2021, Meta did large deals with News Corp and Nine, two of the country’s biggest media companies.
News Corp, which puts most of its content behind paywalls, certainly provides a plethora of information to its subscribers.
And Nine, through its television, print and former radio arms, also plays a critical role in the Australian media.
But the deals with those two companies in particular did not solve the core problem.
Too many smaller publishers were left out, and it leaned to providing a more condensed media landscape than a diverse one.
There is without question an anti-Meta vibe in the publishing industry.
It is somewhat understandable given tech and social media companies have taken revenue away from a lot of the publications and outlets ran by these publishers.
But Meta does have a point when it argues that publishers have benefited significantly from Facebook too.
This is a point often forgotten about.
“News organisations voluntarily share content – free of charge – on Meta’s platforms because they derive real commercial benefits: referral traffic, audience growth, and subsequent advertising revenue they retain in full,” Meta said last week.
At Parra News, we absolutely use Facebook as a tool to generate additional readership to our website and print editions, and Meta is right – once a user exits their platform, we retain the revenue from advertising and so forth.
Too often publishers ignore this fact and the reality is that Meta and publishers need each other more than both think.
At the end of the day you want your content where the eyeballs are and people are transfixed on social media every day.
To that point, Meta is also wrong on its consistent argument that people aren’t going to their platforms for news.
“People come to our platforms for connection, entertainment, and creator content, not to click on news articles,” Meta claims.
That argument would hold some weight if Meta didn’t control the algorithm in relation to what you do and don’t see.
All publishers know that their reach on Facebook in particular has declined significantly in recent years.
Meta cannot legitimately argue that less people are coming to Facebook for news when it has lessened the amount of news people see in their feeds.
In other words, it has literally created the decline. That’s like saying I’m spending less money because I threw away my credit card. Well, duh.
Give people a legitimate choice into how their feeds are presented, and the truth may come out.
Meta’s response has flaws, but so does the government’s plan.
It barely scratches the surface in terms of holding tech companies to account, and it essentially takes a big stick approach hoping they will comply.
The real challenge here is finding out how all parties can exist and thrive in this ecosystem. I’m not sure anyone has actually come up with a solution to that at this point.
Troy Dodds is Parra News' Managing Editor and Breaking News Reporter. He has more than 20 years experience as a journalist, working with some of Australia’s leading media organisations. In 2023, he was named Editor of the Year at the Mumbrella Publish Awards.