Did Google get off easy? That’s what many in journalism – including the NAB – are asking after a late August deal with the internet giant shelved pending legislation in California that would have required the tech giant to compensate local newsrooms for their journalism.
This agreement comes amidst NAB concerns over the declining sustainability of local journalism, compounded by the estimated $2 billion annual loss broadcasters face due to the usage of their content by companies like Google and Meta, as reported by BIA. NAB says, “Rather than right this wrong, California’s new deal continues to undercompensate journalists while sidestepping some of the biggest offenders like Meta. It’s ironic that while this deal offers AI accelerator funds, it ignores the fact that Big Tech-backed AI platforms continue to ingest and profit from local news content without proper compensation or permission”
The News Guilds also criticized the agreement, stating, “Not a single organization representing journalists and news workers agreed to this undemocratic and secretive deal with one of the businesses destroying our industry.” This situation underscores the growing dominance of Big Tech and the urgent need for regulatory intervention.
The national Journalism Competition and Preservation Act is seen as a potential solution to this imbalance. This bipartisan bill would enable news providers to negotiate collectively with tech giants over content usage terms. The passage of the JCPA is deemed crucial by the NAB, especially with the upcoming elections, to support the vital role of local journalism in providing trustworthy, fact-based news to the American public.
Communications SVP Alex Siciliano wrote in an NAB blog post, “The size of tech platforms like Amazon, Facebook, and Google dwarfs local TV and radio stations. These tech giants act as gatekeepers of online content, controlling how consumers access news, and how news publishers are compensated for the use of our content. At the same time, they also siphon away advertising revenue that would otherwise be reinvested into local journalism. The platforms exploit their dominant market position, making it harder for broadcasters to sustain their operations while benefiting from the valuable content created by local stations.”
