As it quickly became apparent yesterday that Facebook’s shutdown of “news” pages extended well beyond those of media companies to a wide variety of non-media organisations — in some cases leading to restorations of pages following complaints — the definition of “news” became a central issue in the government’s attempt to extort large amounts of money from Google and Facebook on behalf of Australian media companies.
Facebook argues that, because of the broad definition of news content in the legislation establishing the mandatory news media bargaining code, it has no choice but to shut down all pages containing news content, regardless of whether they belong to media organisations or not.
Under the legislation, it’s not permitted to discriminate between news content from different sources.
Facebook is correct that the legislative definition — bear in mind the legislation is not yet in force — for news content is extraordinarily wide. A definition of news content is important not merely for the kind of content that is covered by the code, but for determining who gets to participate in the code.
The explanatory memorandum for the bill explains that core news content relates to “issues or events that are relevant in engaging Australians in public debate and in informing democratic decision-making; or current issues or events of public significance for Australians at a local, regional or national level… There is no requirement that the content be produced by a journalist.”
It’s a very broad definition, only limited by the desire of the government to prevent unions, lobby groups and political parties being covered by the code, and by a vague restriction relating to purely comment-based content.
The broader the better, of course: the government wants as many media companies to be able to use the code to extract money from Google and Facebook as possible, and prevent the latter from arguing that some kinds of news content are not covered by the definition.
And for that you can thank two major industry players: News Corp and the Nine Network — who also happen to be the two biggest beneficiaries of the scheme.
In its submission to the ACCC when the competition regulator was consulting on what the code would look like in mid-2020, News Corp made clear how broad it wanted the definition of news content to be. This is what News Corp told the ACCC news content should be:
News Corp Australia considers that ‘news content’ should be defined broadly as ‘content produced for the purpose of investigating, reporting, or providing commentary on issues of interest to Australians’.
The definition of ‘news content’ should be agnostic as to form (which may include text, image, audio, visual or combinations of these) and delivery (which may include distribution through third party platforms such as social media platforms or news aggregators or delivery through smart speakers).
The scope of the term ‘news content’ should not be limited to specific subject matters. Nor should it be limited to public interest journalism or any notion of professional standards.
That is, News Corp thinks news is what is “of interest to Australia” — not what is actually in the public interest.
Nine had a different approach, of limiting the code to organisations that operated under the Australian Press Council or media regulator ACMA, or who were admitted by the ACCC on the basis that they employ professional journalists and “have demonstrated a commitment to presenting factual matters accurately.”
The ACCC issued draft legislation following consultation, proposing that news content be defined as “created by a journalist; and that records, investigates or explains issues that: (i) are of public significance for Australians; or (ii) are relevant in engaging Australians in public debate and in informing democratic decision-making; or (iii) relate to community and local events”.
News Corp was broadly happy with the definition but wanted sports and sports related news content and “social issues” added.
Nine, however, was not happy. It now wanted journalists excluded from the definition on the basis that it “creates an artificial distinction, which does not reflect the way in which that content is valued by consumers”.
It also wanted the ACCC to loosen the definition so that even programs that had only a small amount of news content would be subject to the code, rather than programs that were “predominantly” news.
When the government issued its draft legislation, miraculously, News Corp got the broad definition it wanted, and no requirements for public interest journalism, and Nine got what it wanted — the removal of any requirement to employ journalists to make the content covered under the code.
In doing so, they demonstrated how little this whole scam is about quality journalism. They’re now rather poorly placed to criticise Facebook for shutting down non-news pages — after all, it’s the Nine-News Corp definition that there in the bill.
Still laughing over this! The LNP have taken a free service (to Users) like Facebook, that relies on advertising for its income, and then advised them that they must pay to give referrals to Media Companies (or just about anyone from the definitions in the proposed legislation) and they are surprised that Facebook has said “No”?. All Facebook has done is to decide that they will no longer provide a free referral service to the Media as it will cost them money! Add to that the usual “we’re the victim” complaint (that the LNP Australian Government make whenever anyone pushes back) and that they are being “Bullied” and the hypocrisy of the “outraged Media”, and the laughs continue. Not a fan of Facebook but for once I’m on their side.
I wonder how much Australians would be prepared to pay just to see referrals to Media Companies reappear in Facebook. Not much I would wager.
I’m still mopping up the tears of laughter too. And, while no apologist for FB per se, I’m on their side in this too.
Me too. Interesting but unsurprising that Nine/SMH/Age has not opened up its editorial today for public comment.
Maybe because the comments sections on articles about this issue, in HS, Oz and the Age, all show a consensus that public opinion is not on the Government’s or Media’s side, but instead backing FB.
You have articulated what I think much better than I could have. I already pay for a subscription to The Age amongst others (but not for anything published by Murdoch). So why should The Age get paid again if I post an article in Facebook? Or have I got this wrong?
So how many ‘prematurely retired’ journalists are Murdoch & Nine promising to re-hire once they are in receipt of this windfall…?
It’s about time FB explained all of this to their followers. People won’t be able to make an informed decision based on the MSM coverage. They’ve all gone off their rockers at FB but not a murmur about the planned legislation.
If the “Old Media” are so pissed off because they missed the boat by years maybe they should build their own Facebooks and Googles and stop whining. After all it has nothing to do with actual news, which belongs to nobody, but the lost of advertising. Newspapers have given us little value and yesterday’s news for 25 years.
They should be compelled to dip into their income or investments in online classifieds which they hived off some years but still have significant ownership e.g. both 9F and NewsCorp’s real estate portals?
The definition is bonkers, tell ‘em they’re dreamin.
Whoever wrote this,
“The definition of ‘news content’ should be agnostic as to form (which may include text, image, audio, visual or combinations of these) and delivery”
the person who wrote this probably thinks that the text and photo I sent to my mate is news, and therefore covered. It is, technically, news, but not for mass consumption. FB was probably right to play them at their own game, where is the definition saying something about mass circulation, principle means of revenue etc. Somehow that wasn’t included, and yet this broad brush got through. Of course it was purely for Murdoch and Nine, but what an own goal.
On the other hand, imagine if this government got something right regarding IT and telecommunications policy. That would be news, and new!