At 7:15 am on 7 October 2024 I posted my article entitled “Google vs Media”. Within less than half an hour I received a request from the editor of Law News who wanted to publish the piece that morning. Not a problem and the piece was published.
I was unaware of the fact – until about 11:00 am – that on 7 October the redoubtable Shayne Currie had written a follow-up article in the NZ Herald – a companion pierce if you like to his article of 4 October which I covered in Google vs Media.
The main point of the 7 October article was that “ a newly released Cabinet paper reveals the potential benefits to local media firms of new legislation” or so the article summary read.
In fact the Cabinet paper referred to was obtained by the Herald after an Official Information Act request.
Mr Currie’s article states that the paper “details a raft of options considered by the Government in August, in the face of “multiple and complex challenges” for local media.”
“The Cabinet paper highlights key areas where the Government can adjust settings - including the introduction of the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill; broadening the screen production rebate settings for local productions; and ending a ban on television advertising on Sunday mornings and four other public holidays (Anzac Day morning, Christmas Day, Good Friday and Easter Sunday).”
quoth Mr Currie.
He goes on to note that while lifting the advertising ban would see an additional $5 million in revenue for broadcasters the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill (FDNBB) would, according to the Cabinet paper, bring in up to $50 million a year.
Mr Currie’s article states:
“The Cabinet paper, tabled by Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith, states: “In Australia, the News Media Bargaining Code is delivering an estimated $AUD200 million to news businesses through commercial agreements. In Canada, the Online News Act incentivised Google to invest $CAN100 million annually to the news media industry, and despite Meta removing news from its platforms there, more Canadians are going directly to local news websites.
“In New Zealand, estimates are that news media companies may be able to negotiate deals worth between $30-50 million to the sector.”
Goldsmith’s paper says the new legislation is designed to “support a free and independent news media without the need for direct government funding and ensure media companies can be profitable in a digital environment”.
“Media companies themselves have stated they do not want handouts from government and have asked for a legislative backstop to support commercial outcomes,”
says Goldsmith’s paper.”
Clearly the article provides a potential beneficiary of the FDNBB with an opportunity to support the Bill and emphasise the benefits it will bring. This is not unreasonable. As a potential beneficiary Mr Currie’s employer has “skin in the game”.
However at no stage in the article was there a link to a copy of the Cabinet paper. A link in the article highlighting that the paper was obtained by an OIA request takes us to an article about making OIA requests.
Thus readers do not have the benefit of seeing the detail of the Cabinet paper. We must rely on Mr Currie’s summary of the various settings that may be adjusted by the Government to assist Mainstream Media.
At the risk of repeating myself let us be clear what the FDNBB proposes. It sets up a compulsory negotiating regime where platforms like Google and Facebook may be compelled to negotiate a payment to MSM for content that may appear on Platform websites.
If agreement cannot be reached the “fair” payment will be fixed by a regulatory.
Failure to comply with the Bill when it becomes an Act will render the defaulter liable to civil penalties.
The model is set up by the State to benefit MSM. It is naïve for the Minister to suggest that “Media companies themselves have stated they do not want handouts from government and have asked for a legislative backstop to support commercial outcomes,” because the State creates an environment where a compelled process provides funding for MSM. It may not be a direct handout from the State but it is a handout system created by the State and backed with the coercive power of the State.
I would be interested to see precisely what the Cabinet paper states. As yet it is not available on any of the Government websites. I am interested especially if my suggestion of bringing the problem of platforms free-riding on MSM content under the Copyright Act features in the advice. If the proposal is rejected I would like to know the reasons why. If the proposal doesn’t get a mention (and it should because I submitted the Copyright solution to the Select Committee) then the Minister had been deprived of an option which he might like to consider.
A Halfling’s View on Substack has a total of 832 subscribers and I am grateful for that. But the Halfling is but as minnow in the ocean of media commentary. I doubt if any of my fulminations on this topic (or any other dealing with media and media law) have come to the attention of Mr Currie, the Herald or MSM.
Nevertheless I throw down this gauntlet to the Herald.
Make the Cabinet paper available. Post it somewhere where it is available to the public who should be able to assess the tenor of the advice to the Minister.
This may sound like I don’t trust Mr. Currie. I have no reason not to. But my training both in law and academia is to seek out the primary sources rather than rely on a hearsay interpretation of what that source says.
If any of my readers have some means of communicating this challenge to the Herald or Mr Currie I should be grateful.
I would be even more grateful to see a copy of the Cabinet paper.
Do journalists nowadays even know and understand what is meant by going to the primary source for verification? I suspect Mr Currie has, in common parlance, put an extremely favourable spin on a very flimsy scaffolding. (Apologies for the mixed metaphor)
Given that the Cabinet paper has already been released, I imagine Goldsmith's Media and Communications officials will send a copy to you upon request.