Lawmakers must ensure that preserving California journalism doesn’t enable clickbait

News publishers in California are divided over proposed legislation that would require tech giants to set aside money for newsrooms, which are essential to their platforms. Below, a public interest media advocate says Assembly Bill 886 would favor larger outlets and incentivize clickbait. The opposing view: A journalism expert says the policy would give news outlets unprecedented leverage.

Nearly two decades of newsroom closures and layoffs has left California’s local news landscape devastated.

Just last week, we saw the latest of this troubling trend when the Los Angeles Times announced impending mass layoffs sparking an unprecedented newsroom walkout. This is a moment of crisis for the journalism industry, and the impact on California residents is even greater. 

The connection between a robust local news system and civic health is undeniable, and the rate of the collapse is overwhelming the good work of many journalists, civically-minded philanthropists and innovative entrepreneurs who are trying to fill the ever-growing gaps.

That’s why state lawmakers are beginning to take action. The legislature took a historic step last year when it created the California Local News Fellowship program at UC Berkeley, an initiative designed to place journalists in communities most in need of local reporting. The program has already been a shining example of how bold, keenly targeted policies can support local news and community needs.

But on the heels of this legislative victory, lawmakers have advanced a bill aimed to support local news that may do the opposite. The California Journalism Preservation Act, or CJPA, which passed the Assembly last year and now sits in a Senate committee, would require online platforms of a certain size – effectively just Alphabet, Meta and Microsoft – to pay news outlets for hosting links to their webpages.

This approach has a troubling history: In Australia in 2021, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. propelled a law forward that forced platforms to negotiate with media outlets if they wanted to share links to their stories. The law’s passing turned into a windfall for the Murdoch family and other large media conglomerates, since these giants were best positioned to benefit from a policy that rewards traffic instead of impact. 

Similar results can be expected if Assembly Bill 886 passes in California. According to new research from Free Press Action, giant corporations would receive nearly all the payments coming from Alphabet and Meta, with the bulk of money going to outlets that do not produce California-focused news. Meanwhile, community-focused independent, nonprofit and ethnic media outlets would receive pennies on the dollar compared to the likes of Sinclair Broadcast Group, Fox Corporation and other conglomerate-owned outlets – including those that share the blame for widespread newsroom layoffs in California. 

These findings mirror what the U.S. Government Accountability Office concluded last January, when it stated that such approaches may have “potential unintended consequences for small publishers and consumers,” and that lawmakers should examine the effectiveness of such an intervention in promoting public-interest journalism. 

It’s not hard to see what this would mean for Californians. Bills like the CJPA incentivize clickbait and sensationalist content, creating a more toxic news environment while funneling more money to corporate behemoths. As we’ve seen in Canada, platforms will downrank or outright stop hosting news content, disproportionately harming smaller publishers who rely on these sites to reach their audience. 

That’s the bad news.

The good news is that lawmakers want to get this right. After pausing the CJPA over the summer, the Senate Judiciary Committee held an informational hearing on local news in December. Over the course of four hours, committee members heard from a number of expert witnesses from across the state’s media and tech sectors. Despite a chorus of corporate media voices clamoring for the CJPA, a diverse array of community journalism practitioners and advocates were able to break through the noise and argue for direct investments that could support the kind of public-service journalism Californians need.  

Legislators at the hearing echoed this sentiment. While the mechanics behind AB 886 are flawed, the intentions of its authors – to support local news and better inform communities – are sincere. Lawmakers in Sacramento have the opportunity to pivot to a better solution. 

So, what could that look like? One compelling option is to impose a small tax on the enormous advertising revenues tech platforms generate. The resulting funds could be channeled towards any number of targeted solutions, including creating an independent body to invest in public-interest local journalism, directing government funds to ethnic media outlets, expanding existing programs like Berkeley’s fellowship, or by other means. 

We need solutions that support journalists and the needs of the community. We can stand in solidarity with newsroom workers standing up to their owners, and advocate for policies that don’t disproportionately benefit those same owners at the expense of California residents.

No matter the alternative, one thing is certain: The CJPA is not what Californians need. There are better, more equitable paths forward, and lawmakers should pursue them. 

CalMatters CEO Neil Chase formally opposed AB 886 as it was introduced last year. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the organization, newsroom or its staff.

We want to hear from you

Want to submit a guest commentary or reaction to an article we wrote? You can find our submission guidelines here. Please contact CalMatters with any commentary questions: commentary@calmatters.org