Seeking the Post-COVID Sunshine Through Inland Rail: Or…

By Denis Bright With its strong mandate at the 2013 national election, the…

Three strikes out!

The intention of this post is to examine three areas of concern…

Was COVID-19 born in the United States? (part…

Continued from: Was COVID-19 born in the United States? (part 2) By Outsider Now, here’s…

Not Knowing What You Stand For: Deborah Birx…

Pity the public health official tasked with convincing those beyond convincing that…

Date Rage

Racism and the Australia Day Conundrum If you listen to some in the…

To everyone...

[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QEdUwor9pc[/embed] [textblock style="7"] Like what we do at The AIMN? You'll like it even more…

January 26, 1788: The day the white men…

Whatever your opinion of the day, it is impossible not to stop…

Conversations with Ernie Dingo

So here we go again, 'Strayla Day'. Hype. Flag waving. White people…

«
»
Facebook

Digital media code closer to passage after ABC and SBS win inclusion

A mandatory Australian media code legislation aimed at Silicon Valley’s largest digital media giants is now closer to passage after the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) relented on its original draft and has now included public broadcasters ABC and SBS in the government’s proposed mandatory news code legislation.

Whereas the ACCC’s original draft excluded the ABC and SBS on the presumed justification of those organisations already receiving taxpayer funding, they will now be eligible to receive payments from digital giants such as Facebook and Google, joining in with other mainstream media giants such as News Corp and Nine/Fairfax, to receive payments for running their news content.

Previously, federal communications minister Paul Fletcher said that the bill – under its official name of the News Media Bargaining Code Bill (2020) – did not originally apply to the ABC and SBS, because they “[were] not the policy focus when it comes to remuneration aspects of the proposed mandatory code.”

However, common sense has prevailed: this bill in question, that of essential modern reform, exists as being too important to exclude any of Australia’s media entities which produce content that the likes of Google and Facebook utilise.

The move, initiated by federal treasurer Josh Frydenberg and implemented in the new draft by ACCC chairman Rod Sims, is now slated to win bipartisan support, particularly from renewed numbers from Labor and the Greens, ahead of the updated legislation’s tabling for debate slated for December 10.

The bill would mandate that any digital media enterprise – including but not limited to Facebook and Google – must pay Australian media companies for their content or else face heavy penalties and fines.

Sarah Hanson-Young, the Greens’ senator from South Australia who holds the party’s communications portfolio, was pleased that the party’s demands to amend the legislation to include the public broadcasters was met.

And moreover, Hanson-Young has pledged her party’s support for the proposed legislation.

“It was the wrong decision to lock the public broadcasters out of the draft code and allow Facebook and Google to continue to profit from their content,” Hanson-Young said.

Hanson-Young also said that the future, enhancement and maintaining of public interest journalism, particularly on the ABC and SBS, would stand to benefit if and when the legislation is passed.

“Their inclusion is an important part of tackling the power and greed of the tech giants and protecting public interest journalism,” said Hanson-Young.

Hanson-Young and the Greens had always maintained that the role of fairness to not just the public broadcasters, but also to the ongoing survival of the AAP Newswire service and to smaller media outlets for their digital content as well.

“If it’s good enough for the global tech giants to pay Murdoch for content, then it is only fair that our public broadcasters are compensated for the use of their high-quality journalism, too,” she said.

“We are yet to see the legislation for the code – but when we do, we will also be looking to see that it guarantees simple and cost-effective benefits for small and independent media players.

“If the aim of this code is to ensure the viability of Australia’s media, then not only was it vital ABC and SBS were included, but it’s also important AAP doesn’t fail and small and independent publishers don’t miss out,” added Hanson-Young.

The Greens are not alone in advocating passage of the bill’s new version as being an essential influence on the future of public interest journalism.

Both the Public Interest Journalism Initiative (PIJI) and the Judith Neilson Institute for Journalism and Ideas (JNI) – upon making joint lobbying submissions on behalf of amending the bill – are also pushing for the bill’s immediate impact with its passage.

“There are several issues of paramount importance to public interest journalism within the Code,” said Anna Draffin, PIJI’s chief executive.

“One of these key factors is media diversity, meaning the inclusion of news producers of all sizes, across regional, rural and metropolitan areas.

“The Code must incorporate fair value exchange in both directions, starting with a fair information exchange to ensure equitable commercial outcomes,” added Draffin.

“There has been a lot of talk about the need to encourage more reliable and accurate journalism and the Code can be a world-leading, practical step towards doing just that,” said Mark Ryan, JNI’s executive director.

As Google has been critical of the proposed legislation, even going as far as lobbying the ACCC itself for its vested interests on the bill, it and Facebook have been cooperative in negotiations with the Australian government about the legislation itself.

But the legislation also has the support from various media companies as well, as evidenced in a joint open letter from factions such as Nine, News Corp, Seven West Media and the Guardian Australia.

“Australians also know that trusted local news sources are under threat. Many have closed, forever silencing local voices,” the letter opened.

“The global digital platforms should care about the local media landscape. They should care about ensuring the sustainability of the local news media sector.

“Why? Because they benefit from it – enormously. But the financial ledger in producing the content is currently very one-sided,” the introduction added.

Fighting for a level playing field for everyone should be the ultimate aim of the bill, the letter concluded.

“Google has publicly said it wants to help fund the future of Australian media. That is certainly something that we welcome.

“Supporting a fair and reasonable Code is the first step. The Code is essential to arrest further declines in professional news content in Australia – something our democracy depends on,” it said.

 

The ABC’s recently-remodeled Melbourne TV and radio facility, in the city’s Southbank precinct (Photo from Decon Corp)

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button


4 comments

Login hereRegister here
  1. LambsFry Simplex.

    Sites that create actual news coverage, could claim rent, but I dont see why the likes of Murdoch should be paid for telling lies.

    Some times I get a little sick of MSM’s constant cavillings as to social meeja.

    News orgs that do good news have their stories put up on FB and the like and the use of their news indicates their credibility, for potential other readers.

  2. Andrew J. Smith

    This whole bill is a smoke screen for NewsCorp et al. and LNP to control media narratives not to their liking and are using slow moving targets of Facebook and Google as proxies to further monetise their ‘content’; mostly unique to the Anglo nations US, Australia and lesser extent the UK.

    Question, why is this not such an issue elsewhere amongst the many issues concerning digital platforms? The EU for example is more concerned about tax jurisdictions, privacy of citizens’ data, search rankings that must not benefit large companies vs. small, and misinformation, but not acting on behalf of major media players?

    Also assumes that NewsCorp et al. and the LNP would not use Facebook and Google to promote and message their own content or policies to targetted audiences? What is to stop Facebook and Google reacting negatively to such an Act if legislated, as Australia is not the main game, and would not be in the interests of any local media?

    Further, claiming that it is in the interest of Australian journalism (and indirectly in the public interest) is a band aid measure/front and ignores the impediments in producing good journalism and issue of prejudice within Australian (mediated) political media ‘delivery systems’. For example, targetted denigration of journalists, threats of legal action or sacking, confidential briefings to selected journalists by the PM, while some outlets are even given subsidies to prolong their old or legacy media technology…..

    This precludes smaller independent media outlets and blogs which cannot compete against Australian legacy media outlet’s overly large domestic reach and consolidated commercial media, hence, they depend upon Facebook and Google SEO to be visible digitally (and globally) but this advantage will be removed?

    Finally, our media and political elites, or dinosaurs, are infamously illiterate when it comes to technology, social media, digital and marketing; hardly the people you’d want developing a media bill round digital platforms into the future, but perhaps a good distraction.

    Me thinks this another Australian example of political shenanigans while also a base attempt to avoid change and innovation for media business protection reasons, bit like tariffs or Covid task force wanting to permanently embed gas into the grid while ignoring best practice globally i.e. renewable sources.

  3. DrakeN

    The principle of excluding the SBS abd ABC from the bill is another ploy to pass public money on to commercial enterprises – private industry ‘socialism’ for which right-wing governments are infamous.
    The process of enriching the ‘haves’ at the expense of the ‘have-nots’ is a well established regression to the fuedal eras of Master and serf.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Return to home page
Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: