Australia’s top media executives have backed the federal government’s proposed News Bargaining Incentive, as Anthony Albanese ramps up pressure on tech giants with a 2.25% revenue levy.
Leaders across the industry, including Michael Miller, Matt Stanton, and Hugh Marks, warned that the sustainability of journalism is at risk.
The draft scheme would require platforms like Google, Meta and TikTok to strike deals with publishers or face the levy, with offsets of up to 170% for those that do.
In order to understand what it means, not just for publishers, like Mediaweek, but also for consumers of online news, we went to lawyer Nicholas Stewart, who is a partner at Dowson Turco Lawyers, to learn more.
Loading...
Reload document
Open in new tab Mediaweek: OK, so what does this all mean? I’m talking easy-to-understand stuff that people who like to consume media, but might not work in it, will understand.
Nicholas Stewart: Social media platforms rely on Australians using their platforms to access news. Australians are somewhat unique in their use of social media to access news articles. News companies want social media platforms to pay for their content because the platforms profit from Australians using them for news.
Similarly, news organisations rely on social media platforms to push their content to Australians. The basic principle is that news organisations want social media platforms to pay for the work of journalists who contribute to their revenue by providing popular content.
The government is proposing to tax social media platforms that don’t reach agreements with news organisations. This is because social media companies once had agreements with platforms, but those agreements have since expired.
The tax will be up to 2.25 per cent on Australian revenue.
Mediaweek: Will this mean the average Australian will pay more for their news?
Nicholas Stewart: Probably not. It will be cheaper for social media platforms to reach agreements with news organisations. These platforms make enormous profits from Australian users, and most of the revenue is sent offshore. This is effectively the cost of doing business for social media platforms that know Australians access much of their news on their platforms.
Mediaweek: Why is this so important?
Nicholas Stewart: This is important because Australians should be able to read and watch Australian news content on social media, if that is where we prefer to access it.
When Meta walked away from negotiations two years ago, it blocked hundreds of pages that it designated as “news” organisations. My law firm even had its social accounts blocked because our social media team shares a lot of news content.
In a time of mistrust in government and of misinformation and disinformation from some global media channels, the government says that investing in Australian journalism is critical to the industry’s integrity, and I agree with that sentiment.
Legal expert Nicholas Stewart, who is a partner at Dowson Turco Lawyers
Mediaweek: On that point, can’t we just get news from anywhere now? All these places are acting like gatekeepers when I can probably just get it from, say, X or Facebook?
Nicholas Stewart: Okay, this is precisely why. In 2023, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) studied Australians’ preferences for news. It found that 20 per cent of Australians nominated social media as their main source of news in 2023, up from 17 per cent in 2022. It also found that more Australians are choosing social media as their primary source of news content. And 46 per cent of 18–24-year-olds nominated social media as their main source of news, up from 28 per cent in 2022.
Mediaweek: How unusual is it for the bosses of all the media organisations to agree on something?
Nicholas Stewart: Highly unusual! But I would imagine in a situation like this, where social media platforms are central to news organisations’ ability to expand their readership and get clicks, it is a matter of survival, and they are more powerful as a collective.
Main image: AI-generated