Bargaining for public interest

When it was introduced on 3 March 2021, Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code made international headlines. One year on, the code is now being reviewed by Treasury to assess the extent to which it has achieved its aim of ensuring digital platforms fairly remunerate news businesses for their content, thereby helping to sustain public interest journalism in Australia.

The code has resulted in news businesses reaching deals with Meta and Google reportedly valued at over $250 million annually. Not that it is possible to put an accurate figure on these deals – they have all been reached without any platforms being designated, meaning they are not subject to the already-limited transparency provisions in the code. Confidentiality agreements have ensured that the details are largely opaque to the public, to other news businesses and to government.

This may benefit parties to a deal, but it likely works against the interests of smaller businesses who are deprived of information that may help them bargain with digital platforms. It also makes it very difficult to gauge the extent to which the deals help sustain public interest journalism. In our submission to the review we argue that the code should mandate a degree of transparency for deals made both under the code and in the shadow of the code.

A lack of transparency is not the only problem. Even with designation, there is a risk the code will reinforce existing market failures by failing to direct support to quality news sources that invest in and produce original public interest journalism. The businesses registered so far by the ACMA include some that largely repackage news produced by other businesses and therefore undermine rather than contribute to the production of public interest journalism. One of these, ‘News Cop’, was registered as a company only days before the code passed into law. In effect, the code provides an incentive for the launch of low-cost businesses to take advantage of the remuneration they could receive through bargaining with digital platforms.

We believe the code should support and foster quality journalism that reflects the standards of accuracy and fairness that are generally included in professional codes of practice. But by allowing news sources with internal standards systems, the code supports news that does not meet the standards we expect of traditional news businesses, the quality of which can be tested through the independent adjudication of complaints. 

In our view, the code also presents a missed opportunity to re-evaluate Australia’s confusing and flawed news media oversight system and to address the increasingly important role of digital platforms in the distribution of news. As we have consistently argued,  the 14 disparate codes of practice that apply across various media platforms should be brought under the one independent cross-media standards scheme that includes an effective complaints-handling function. Digital platforms should be brought in as associate members to help to fund the scheme and take other action such as promoting the content produced by publisher members.

News businesses are already gaining major benefits from the code. These benefits ought to come with an increased responsibility to produce quality journalism that contributes to the public interest. A requirement to participate in an overhauled and enhanced media standards scheme would help ensure the code contributes to sustaining public interest journalism in Australia.

Michael Davis, CMT Research Fellow

 

This article was first published in the CMT newsletter of 13 May 2022, which dealt with key issues of public interest - Election misinformation, radicalisation through social media and public interest journalism and more. Click to read the full edition here. If you want to receive this newsletter direct to your inbox, please subscribe here.