Read on Twitter
Keep getting calls from journalists and others about the draft Australian News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code so some points to add to the thread I posted last year. I'm glad there is political focus on future of news, but sceptical of draft code as is 1/23 https://twitter.com/rasmus_kleis/status/1300713313328922624
Can policy help sustain independent news media? We know for a fact it can. Is it justified? That’s a political question. I personally believe it is in many cases. Journalism and news, with its many imperfections, is a public good and important for our democracy and societies 2/23
If one recognize that fact, and embrace the idea of policy intervention, are there then options we have reason to believe work? Nothing is perfect, and all this is political, but I think there on balance are, have written about them for years e.g here https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/what-can-be-done-digital-media-policy-options-europe-and-beyond 3/23
I would point in particular to public funding of independent public service media (as e.g BBC in UK) and direct subsidies for independent news media (as in e.g Denmark) as examples. Also potential in e.g non-profit as supplement plus public support for new ideas like #IFPIM 4/23
Normally such arrangements are funded either through general taxation or a specific licence fee/media tax where public funding supports a public good. (Would personally welcome digital services tax as part of this wider financial basis, e.g UK expects £500m/y from big tech.) 5/23
Ideally such policies require politicians to describe what they want & design policies accordingly(e.g public service for everyone,direct support tailored to support smaller/local publishers more than large) & funding not reliant on channelling it from few specific companies 6/23
(For example-imagine BBC was funded by money taken from pay TV or Danish subsidies for independent news media funded by levy on telcos. What would happen if pay TV was disrupted or telcos broken up? Presumably we'd still need public interest news but funding would decline?) 7/23
I wonder how Australian draft proposal is meant to work in these respects. If it works, seems like it will mostly benefit big incumbents (e.g News Corp & Nine), and at least initially funding is tied to FB and Google who are well entrenched but subject to anti-trust scrutiny 8/23
Compared to public service and direct subsidies, risk seems to be a)regulation reinforcing winner-takes-most dynamics & b)incentivizing publishers to rely more on platforms at time there is growing criticism of reliance on platforms? Both BBC & Danish models work differently 9/23
BBC has its remit, and neither its role nor its funding for fulfilling it is reliant on working w/Google and/or Facebook. Independent news media in Denmark, esp small/local, receive direct public support irrespective of whether and how much they feature on search and social 10/23
Then there is Q of wider impact of Australian proposal. Interesting that Microsoft say they support the draft, raising the prospect of one trillion-dollar market cap US tech company with a history of drawing anti-trust scrutiny taking the place of another. But beyond GAFAM? 11/23
(As I've said, in a way I hope Google pulls out. It would be a great natural experiment, we'd learn a lot - including what Microsoft would end up paying publishers. Close to $1b News Corp suggested, or perhaps closer to $10m figure Google floated? https://twitter.com/rasmus_kleis/status/1356204453070852098 12/23)
Now, ignore the self-interested special pleading & posturing of those most directly affected and consider some other angles and wider implications (as one should with public policy). Picking just a few, look at (a) news, (b) tech, (c) business more broadly, and (d) the web. 13/23
First (a) news. Big publishers support draft code. Smaller publishers and new entrants-that's much less clear. Last year a group of digital publishers warned code "disadvantage the rich variety of new media voices". Policy creates winners and losers https://mumbrella.com.au/digital-publishers-unite-with-fears-accc-code-may-disadvantage-the-rich-variety-of-new-media-voices-643032 14/23
Second (b) tech. Beyond GAFAM, see e.g Twitter warning "Code would potentially incentivise the curation of exclusive content on these designated platforms creating unfair competition and harming smaller platforms through reduced traffic and content" https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/frydenberg-hits-out-at-tech-giants-for-shifting-goalposts-on-media-code-20210124-p56wgz.html 15/23
Third (c) business more broadly. Do they want this? Industry associations (Business Council of Australia) https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Business%20Council%20of%20Australia_0.pdf and employers' organizations (Australian Industry Group) https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Ai%20Group.pdf
have expressed reservations about "unprecedented intervention" 16/23
have expressed reservations about "unprecedented intervention" 16/23
Fourth (d) the web as we know it-GAFAM critic Tim Berners-Lee says draft “could make the web unworkable around the world” by “breaching a fundamental principle [by] requiring payment for linking between certain content online”. Big collateral damage? https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/20/australias-proposed-media-code-could-break-the-world-wide-web-says-the-man-who-invented-it 17/23
I don't know what will happen in Australia. It is as much politics as policy, and no politician want to look like they are bowing to pressure from foreign private companies (whether they will bow to their fourth biggest trading partner is separate Q) https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/19/us-attacks-australias-extraordinary-plan-to-make-google-and-facebook-pay-for-news 18/23
But I know publishers globally are following the Australian situation with interest, and readying their own proposals, and some policy makers are interested too. Here e.g. Canadian minister saying “we stand in solidarity with our Australian partners” https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-federal-law-on-social-media-and-news-organizations-coming-this-spring/ 19/23
Perhaps they will consider whether there are other policy options that serve most publishers’ interest & broader public interest + do not risk legislating to reinforce winner-takes-most dynamics, increase publishers’ reliance on few big platforms, and do collateral damage? 20/23
No easy options: however well-intentioned, policy interventions require balancing editorial independence, efficiency, & accountability for public support, avoid excessive market distortion, and guard against media capture, moral hazard, rent seeking https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1732227 21/23
But we know there are options, personally think digital services taxes (even better, OECD tax reform) would be welcome contribution to how general taxation can fund them, & that-wherever we land w/news-clearly there are wider issues around data, competition, etc to look at. 22/23
Finally: debate coincide w/growing public criticism of established news media. 
code will primarily benefit what one former PM calls a "cancer on our democracy". Personally support (some) public policy to sustain news. Does the public? I'm not sure https://www.ft.com/content/e4bc7513-e827-4edd-844f-2bc4cad731ae 23/23
code will primarily benefit what one former PM calls a "cancer on our democracy". Personally support (some) public policy to sustain news. Does the public? I'm not sure https://www.ft.com/content/e4bc7513-e827-4edd-844f-2bc4cad731ae 23/23
