Oregon is considering passing a law that could reshape the relationship between technology companies and the news organizations that inform and connect communities across the state.
Local News Crisis
Oregon’s local newsrooms lost 71% of their staff between 2017 and 2022, according to the Agora Journalism Center's 2022 report. Closures and mergers among outlets abounded, including the Pulitzer-winning Medford Mail Tribunethat had been around for well over a century. Since then, the crisis has intensified, with nearly 20 outlets closing or merging, and 30% sold to Carpenter Media, raising concerns about reduced news diversity.
Budget cuts and AI-generated misinformation further threaten local news quality, leading to "zombie newspapers" with questionable content. Surveys reveal mixed trust and satisfaction among Oregonians, citing poor quality and bias as issues. Efforts to support local news have grown, including a $500 million philanthropic initiative awarding funding to several Oregon newsrooms. Despite these efforts, resource needs remain acute, and many have been calling for action at a higher level.
Bold Bill to Fund Journalism
Enter the proposed Senate Bill 686, sponsored by State Senator Khan Pham. This legislation aims to address the revenue imbalance where tech giants profit from news content without compensating newsrooms.
The bill proposes creating the Oregon Civic Information Consortium at the University of Oregon to support civic information initiatives. It offers tech companies three options: negotiate payments with publishers, enter arbitration, or pay a lump sum into a fund for journalism providers. Companies with over six billion users, like Google, would contribute $104 million annually, while others, like Meta, would pay $18 million.
The law would include a mechanism where payouts to digital publishers are determined by the number of journalists and freelancers they employ within the state. This approach aims to ensure that financial compensation from tech companies is proportionate to the size and capacity of each newsroom. By linking payouts to employment figures, the bill seeks to support news organizations that maintain a robust workforce dedicated to producing local journalism. This method incentivizes outlets to sustain or expand their staff, thereby enhancing their ability to cover local affairs comprehensively. This structure is designed to address the decline in journalism jobs and support the sustainability of local news outlets, ensuring they can continue to deliver quality news coverage to the public.
Debate Heats Up
While all that sounds very nice in theory, SB 686 certainly doesn’t have unanimous support from the public.
In general, those working in journalism seem to be on board. Journalism professors Anya Schiffrin and media economics professor Haaris Mateen emphasize that “reliable and trustworthy news is essential for democracy.” They believe the bill will inject millions into the sector, creating jobs and fostering innovation. Schiffrin and Mateen’s research highlights how tech giants like Google and Meta profit from news content without fairly compensating publishers, estimating that Oregon publishers should receive about $122 million annually if markets were competitive. They argue that SB 686 addresses this imbalance by requiring tech platforms to pay their share, with funds distributed transparently—90% to publishers and 10% to a journalism consortium. Schiffrin and Mateen conclude that if implemented, SB 686 could serve as a national model for sustaining local news and preserving informed public discourse, stating they are “delighted to see good ideas being tried” in Oregon.
Unsurprisingly, opposition to SB 686 comes from tech giants like Google and Facebook, industry groups such as the Technology Association of Oregon and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), and several libertarian-leaning individuals. Critics argue that the bill would have “long-lasting, detrimental effects on Oregon’s news and digital services industries” and could even threaten free speech. Aodhan Downey, a CCIA lobbyist, testified, “SB 686 undermines the principle of open access to information on the internet, significantly underrates the value of linking for publications online, and stands to repeat similar unsuccessful attempts seen in various parts of the world.”
Opponents also raise legal concerns, claiming the bill conflicts with federal law—specifically the Supremacy Clause and Section 301(a) of the U.S. Copyright Act—by requiring payment for content that is otherwise freely accessible. Ken Doctor, a longtime media executive and founder of Lookout Eugene-Springfield, warned that search engines might block access to local news or engage in costly litigation if SB 686 passes. Critics further argue that funds could end up benefiting out-of-state media conglomerates rather than local journalism, potentially consolidating media power and harming the diversity of information available to Oregonians.
Who's right? A look at recent history might help. While Oregon is the first U.S. state to try something like this, it certainly isn’t the first government in the world to do so.
Global Lessons Offer Little
Five years ago, Australia passed a similar law called the News Media Bargaining Code (NMBC) to address the power imbalance between digital platforms and Australian news businesses, ensuring fair remuneration for journalism. The code allows direct negotiation or mandatory fees if negotiations fail. While supported by major media companies and public broadcasters, smaller entities criticized the code for favoring dominant players. Despite broad parliamentary support, the NMBC faced strong opposition from Facebook and Google, with Google threatening to exit the market. Google adapted by signing deals with news outlets, while Meta blocked news content temporarily, causing disruptions during emergencies. Though the NMBC's implementation remains complex, it has led to expanded newsrooms and numerous deals.
Then, in 2023, Canada passed the Online News Act, addressing the decline in advertising revenue for news outlets. It requires platforms with over C$1 billion global revenue and 20 million Canadian users to negotiate financial agreements with news outlets, with mediation and arbitration as backup processes. But critics claimed the Act fragments the Internet, limiting growth and competition. While Google initially agreed to pay $100 million Canadian dollars annually to Canadian news outlets, it eventually negotiated an exemption. Meta has resisted, blocking news access on Facebook and Instagram, impacting users during emergencies like wildfires. Smaller media businesses suffer more than major players, with some reporting traffic drops of up to 80%.
Unfortunately, examples of other countries passing a law like Oregon’s proposed bill don’t give us any clear answers. The ultimate impact will depend on how the law is implemented, how tech companies respond, and whether safeguards can be put in place to protect both the diversity and quality of Oregon’s news ecosystem. But the bill is still a long way from becoming enacted, if that ever happens.
Related Resources:
- After Copyright Dispute with Record Label, Salt-N-Pepa 'Push It' to Court (FindLaw's Legally Weird)
- DoorDash Faces Legal Action in Canada Over Deceptive Pricing (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- (Some) Justice for Weinstein Victims Amidst Mixed Verdict (FindLaw's Courtside)
