Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez is expected to introduce the Online News Act (technically An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada), his response to a massive lobbying campaign from Canadian media organizations today. Bill C-18 will hand new power to the CRTC to oversee what are effectively mandatory payments by Internet platforms such as Google and Facebook for the mere appearance of news on their platforms. This represents nothing less than a government-backed shakedown that runs the risk of undermining press independence, increasing reliance on big tech, and hurting competition and investment in Canadian media. I will have several posts in the coming days including an analysis of the bill once it drops and a review of the lobbying campaign for the bill, which included over 100 registered lobbyist meetings by News Media Canada over the past three years and skewed coverage of the issue in which the overwhelming majority of news stories backed government intervention.
This posts provides a higher level assessment of why this bill is terrible policy. I start with two caveats. First, companies such as Facebook deserve much of the criticism that has come their way and there is a desperate need for stronger regulatory measures, most notably involving privacy, competition, taxation, and appropriate accountability for foreseeable harms that arise from the platforms. The dominance of Google and Facebook in the digital ad market raises particular concerns, but that is a competition issue, not a news one and requiring the companies to pay for news based primarily on having developed a more successful digital advertising platform is not a supportable policy.
Second, despite the serious transparency concerns identified this week by Canadaland, I am supportive of government support for the sector, which has undergone dramatic change affecting many journalists and the sources of news coverage available to Canadians. Several years ago, the sector lobbied heavily for government support and got it, with hundreds of millions in tax dollars poured into programs and tax breaks. The programs that have been introduced – the Local Journalism Initiative, the Journalism Labour Tax Credit, and the Digital News Subscription Tax Credit – offer some hope, provided they maintain a neutral, transparent implementation that does not favour legacy companies over new, innovative services. The transparency has thus far been a failure requiring immediate action. But it is still relatively early in the process and the government should have been content to allow those programs to play out and judge the need for further measures afterward.
By creating the shakedown subsidy model, the government runs the risk of significant harms. What are some of those harms? This post discusses five: independence of the press, competition and innovation, compensation without value, reliance on big tech, and administrative and governance risks.
Independence of the Press
Minister Rodriguez will insist that the government is committed to a free and independent press, likely citing the bill as a mechanism to enhance that independence by providing better financial support. Yet the reality is that the bill and the lobbying behind it has already undermined press independence. For example, I know of cases where opinion pieces have been spiked by mainstream media outlets because they criticized the previous Heritage Minister at a time when he was being actively lobbied on a potential media bill. Those decisions come on top of blank front pages and advertorials designed to curry support for the measures. The blurring of editorial and financial may be a fact of life, but it ultimately diminishes the credibility of the media.
The coverage and lobbying for this bill builds on the problems with the previous measures designed to support the sector. The Canadaland coverage demonstrates how promised transparency never materialized and previous coverage expressed concern about the independence of the decision making process itself, which appeared to favour large incumbents over new, innovative start-up news organizations. Simply put, programs and policies that make Canadian media organizations more reliant on government intervention has had a demonstrable impact on independence of the press.
Competition and Innovation
The policy undermines competition at a time when there is more investment in media ventures than ever before as investors put billions into the sector worldwide. From a Canadian perspective, some of Canada’s largest and most powerful media organizations, including the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, Le Devoir, and the Winnipeg Free Press have struck licensing deals with the Internet platforms. Further, many smaller or independent organizations have also reached agreement with Internet platforms. This points to the reality that there is the ability to negotiate mutually beneficial agreements without the need for government intervention or mandates.
In fact, the list of digital-first independent media organizations continues to grow with many now supporting serious newsrooms backed by thousands of subscribers or robust advertising. A sampling would include:
- The Breach
- The Coast
- La Converse
- Daily Hive
- The Discourse
- The Halifax Examiner
- The Logic
- The Narwhal
- National Observer
- Oakville News
- Overstory Media Group (including Capital Daily, Fraser Valley Current, Burnaby Beacon, Calgary Citizen)
- Peterborough Currents
- The Pointer
- The Post Millennial
- The Public Record
- Rebel News
- The Sprawl
- Sun Peaks Independent News
- Taproot Edmonton
- The Tyee
- Village Media (dozens of local Ontario news sites)
- The Walrus
- West End Phoenix
- Western Standard
This list represents hundreds of Canadian communities and a wide range of political perspectives. The publications might not be owned by Postmedia or Torstar, but they offer much of the coverage that Minister Rodriguez fears is being lost. Indeed, as Emma Gilchrist noted last year:
Many new and innovative business models are succeeding. Village Media, a company based out of Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., was started by digital natives in 2013 and now employs 105 full-time staff. The Sprawl, in Calgary, is primarily funded by its readers and doubled its paying monthly members in 2020. The Vancouver-based Tyee has been a pioneer in the digital media sector since 2003 and increased reader revenue by 58 per cent last year. IndigiNews, launched in 2020 by The Discourse and APTN, has grown to a team of eight – doubling the number of Indigenous journalists reporting in B.C. in a single year. Canada’s National Observer and The Narwhal have amassed a tidy pile of awards reporting on climate change and the environment. Toronto’s West End Phoenix, Halifax’s The Coast, Quebec’s La Converse – the list of independent successes, most owned or led by journalists, is so long that Maclean’s recognized “independent media” on its 2021 edition of its “Power List.”
A policy that favours the legacy companies that have struggled to adapt to the online environment is an approach that will harm competition and make the transition to digital, independent media even more difficult.
Compensation Without Value
The government’s plans effectively require compensation without something deserving of compensation. That is best described as a shakedown. The availability of news on Internet platforms is largely limited to links to news articles that refer users back to the original source (full length articles are licensed). There is no copyright violation for linking to content, the posts come from users or the media companies themselves, and there is value to the publishers in the form of the referrals to the full content.
For example, when links to news articles are posted to Facebook – most commonly by the news organizations themselves – those news articles do not appear in full. Rather, they are merely links that feature a headline, photo, and brief description that then send users to the original news site for more. From Facebook’s perspective, there is enormous value in referring users to media sites, who benefit from advertising revenue from the visits. Indeed, Facebook estimates the value at hundreds of millions of dollars. While it does licence some news content, the overall value of news articles to the site and its users is limited.
In fact, the value derived from posting of links to news organizations accrues to publishers from free referrals to their content. Not only do media organizations benefit from the free referrals, but they also actively encourage their users to post links, including widgets to do so at the bottom of every article. The reason is obvious: it increases traffic to their site and thereby generates ad revenue. Facebook does not charge a referral fee, a posting fee or any other fee in connection with the display of links to the newspaper article.
This is not to suggest that the news has no value. Obviously it does. However, the news has limited value to the Internet platforms, which represents a tiny fraction of overall traffic. In considering how platforms have responded to similar measures in the past, previous attempts to mandate licensing of news articles in Spain and Germany led Google to remove the content from its news service. As a result of the Google news shut down in Spain, studies found publisher website traffic dropped by 10 per cent, demonstrating the value that free referral links provide to news publishers.
If the forthcoming bill is not about compensating for links, what is being compensated? It appears that the answer is simply that the Internet companies have developed better digital ad models than the legacy publishers. In fact, the same politicians that now seek to regulate payments are themselves active advertisers on Internet platforms. Last week, Conservative MP John Nater engaged in the following exchange with Liberal MP Francesco Sorbara in the House of Commons:
Nater: Madam Speaker, the member opposite talked a lot about the foreign streamers and the web giants. I am just curious to know how he feels about the fact that he has spent $19,000-plus on Facebook advertising, rather than focusing on the important local broadcasting or local newspapers in his own riding. Why does he feel the need to spend his money on the foreign web giants rather than investing in Canadian broadcasting and print journalism?
Sorbara: For the hon. member, I am sure that if we look at all parliamentarians and the advertising they do, because many of our residents are on Facebook and other platforms, I am sure that we would see that all parliamentarians advertise to reach their residents through the platforms they are using to receive their information as well.
Sorbara is right. MPs, much like many businesses, advertise on digital platforms because the ads are effective, not because there are links to news content on the same platform.
Reliance on Big Tech
The power of large Internet platforms clearly present policy challenges and broader societal concerns. As noted earlier, there is a need for regulation on a wide range of issues. But establishing a cross-industry subsidy model premised on little more than one sector being more profitable than the other further embeds the reliance on big tech. Indeed, rather than creating alternatives to big tech, it renders the Internet companies even more powerful. The cycle of seeking ever more subsidies – first from Canadian taxpayers and now from Internet companies – encourages more lobbying, not more innovation. As the legacy companies become increasingly reliant on these subsidies, they become less competitive, less innovative, and inextricably linked to big tech handouts.
Further, the prospect that the bill will extend beyond newspaper companies to include broadcasters such as the CBC and Bell’s stable of radio stations moves it from bad policy to absolute farce. For the public broadcaster or Canada’s largest media company to line up to demand payments shows the tenuous connection between payments and any plausible claim to compensation.
Administrative and Governance Risks
The government’s plan also raises several notable administrative and governance risks. At the very top is the reliance on the Qualified Canadian Journalism Organization (QCJO) designation. The recent Canadaland episode highlights not only how entities engaged in hate or misleading content may still be recipients of government support, but how the government’s commitment to full transparency in the process has failed to materialize. Relying on the same system creates extraordinary risks that may undermine public confidence in the entire plan.
The use of the CRTC is also a significant risk, particularly given that the Commission currently has a chair facing charges of bias who recently gave a talk that appears to pre-judge the implementation of legislation that has not received royal assent. With a chair willing to parrot government talking points, the independence of the CRTC is in question and when applied to its role in the media bill, raises questions about whether it can truly provide a neutral arbitration over licensing.
Finally, the policy raises potential trade risks under the USMCA, since the obvious targets of the legislation are U.S. companies and the sole beneficiaries are Canadian ones. If U.S. media outlets such as CNN or the NY Times are excluded from the plan – they certainly won’t qualify as QCJO’s – the possibility of a trade battle and potential retaliation becomes a real possibility.
So instead of just saying the obvious “this is bad,” my question to Michael is…why do you still claim support increased regulation of the Internet when every actual attempt is so ham-fistedly terrible you have to fight it tooth-and-nail? Do you actually think there is the slightest chance of what you actually find “appropriate” legislation ever happening? Is it just some nonsense you repeat publicly to try to maintain your liberal bona fides?
“why do you still claim support increased regulation of the Internet when every actual attempt is so ham-fistedly terrible you have to fight it tooth-and-nail?”
Probably because there is such thing as good regulations and simply being one of those “Regulation BAD!!!eleventyoneone” is not a sustainable position to have.
What would be a good regulation to have? How about laws protecting the privacy of citizens online (ala GDPR)? What about regulations encouraging greater access to broadband in rural and indigenous communities? What about regulations encouraging greater competition in the wireless and Internet carrier sector?
It’s called “nuance” and there is a LOT of that in the world of technology.
The European regulations responsible for that idiotic cookies popup on every site that we ignore are good? The idea of the people who are literally listening in on our phone calls and are constantly floating proposals to destroy the concept of encryption having any actual interest in protecting our “privacy” is laughable.
Your notion that any attempts to “improve access” or “encouraging greater competition” would actually, in the real world, do any of those things is also laughable. They’ve only been trying for 30 or so years now, will the 75th time be the charm?
Man, listing Rebel News as a “newsroom” and not even mentioning Freezenet? Oof I feel snubbed. :\
While I generally agree with your take, the larger problem is that the money just isn’t in the news content itself, as sad as that is, but rather user engagement. Yet, news sources help drive that engagement in the first place, but news sources don’t get a significant piece of that user engagement pie back, at least not in proportion to the value they provide to the social media company.
While Facebook, Twitter or Reddit users may only embed a small amount and post a link to content, well covered under fair dealing, the platform keeps engagement with users talking about articles, etc. The news organization may get a quick referral, a user goes reads the article, maybe spends 2 to 5 minutes reading the article, then returns to facebook to comment and share a link to the article to their own circle and the cycle repeats.
This means the majority of user engagement and ad impression time is on the original platform since that is where the user spends more time (and in some cases might get to double dip if they run the ad platform themselves). Another issue is if in fact those news organization have paywalls to try and monetize their content, the content of those platforms is often posted by users in full or with technical workarounds via archive.is, or the like, or or even just users that post TLDR summaries of the article (which would be covered by fair dealing), the news org doesn’t get a clickthrough from anyone that comes after in that case.
Of course user engagement is the whole point of social media, and that is not news media’s goal, user-interaction about news content is not something that is monetized by the news media, but actively is fostered and monetized by social media companies.
Thinking about it another way, pre-internet, should coffee shops have paid a copyright fee for having print newspapers for customers to read, and sit around and talk about? Or doctor’s offices and their often outdated magazine collection? On the face of it, someone should be allowed to share a newspaper they bought with someone else, but for the cost of a single newspaper or 2 the coffee shop got an outsized benefit by having customers sit around and order more coffee talking about what they read… the newspaper never got to monetize the benefit they provided the coffee shop. Pre-internet it didn’t matter because people actually paid for news, but increasingly users are expecting news for free, and if not they will pirate it.
This is recognized at least in the music world, business have to pay SOCAN and RE:SOUND if they play music in the background in their place of business (and they still have to buy the music as well), and its regularly audited by SOCAN. Those rates are set by legislation, not entity to entity bargaining, though there are services that can be used instead (Tariff 15A vs. 16). Given that precedent, maybe a link tax isn’t so far feteched?
It *is* a shakedown though, I don’t necessarily agree with this approach, and I know you’ve written about SOCAN Tariff 15A in the past (though I can’t find those artcles on your blog anymore).
Social media companies having to pay news organizations for links makes as much sense as news organizations having to pay the NHL to report standings and scores. News organizations benefit from links the same way the NHL benefits from news organizations covering it.
News organizations have lost readers, and hence ad revenue, because readers of sports, business, entertainment, weather, and classified ads have left them
for other platforms.
Getting the government to strong-arm social media companies is, at best, a short-term solution, as the social media companies will take steps (block links, charge for links, charge news companies for accounts) to minimize the costs of this Bill.
This Bill will also turn news organizations into Bell and Rogers clones – companies that focus on pleasing the regulator/government instead of pleasing the customer.
The only beneficiary of this Bill will be the government as it will destroy the independence of news organizations.
Pingback: Government Tables Bill to Make Big Tech Pay For Canadian News - True USA
I’ve been trying my hardest at building a news site for years. While the site itself has faced significant hurdles, this legislation doesn’t help me at all. A section of the bill says that if a news site focuses on a specific topic, it is not eligible to be considered a news organization that could theoretically receive compensation. This is over top of the massive number of other hurdles put in place such as demanding a business license or requiring a specific number of paid Canadian employees be part of the site.
At the same time, however, the law mandates that if a link to a news site is present, then Google or Facebook has to pay money for the privilege of linking to my site. This appears to be regardless of eligibility. So, in other words, Google pays (pulling a random number out of the air since I have nothing else to go on) $400 because my site has over 10,000 pages that it links to. That money goes into a pool. Subsequently, that money then goes to a larger outfit like CTV because my site is not eligible to receive compensation or bargain.
Further, my reading of the law suggests that I have no way to have my site opt out of this, either.
Basically, the law mandates that CTV steals money that should really go to someone like me since I was the one forced to “charge” for the privilege of linking to my site. This is straight up mandated theft of my work because CTV is profiting off of my work.
I can see you article you can explain very well. This article is very informative for me
I was searching for the details of this topic and found it on your website and this gives me much more clarity and information on this topic
Pingback: Liberals to force Google and Facebook to pay CBC, legacy media – Indie Media
Pingback: Proposed Online News Act Inserts the State Into the Newsrooms of the Nation - True USA
Pingback: Proposed online news law inserts nation into national news room – Trend News – Securykid
Pingback: Peter Menzies: Proposed Online News Act Inserts the State Into the Newsrooms of the Nation – Million Voices USA
Pingback: Bill C-18 Online News Act: Canadian Government’s Independent Media Shakedown – Not Your CBC News
It is a wonderful blog indeed! I love the subject matter that has been chosen by the writer. What a great choice indeed and also how perfectly it has been written, I am truly impressed.
Fosterjee JEE Classes
The more we read the more we learn and blogs are the most efficient ways in today’s time to enhance your learning. They are short and yet provide brief details on the topic. Amazing blog written.
digital advertising agency
Pingback: more harm than good | Fair Duty
Pingback: The Online News Act is bad news for press independence and competition - Canada News Cast