For decades, the U.S. government used antitrust laws to limit and constrain the news business. Believe it or not, it actually stopped the sale of the Orange County Register in 2016 out of fears of a “monopoly over newspaper sales.” But enforcement in media goes only one way, and Big Tech has been allowed to strangle journalism in violation of long-standing antitrust principles.
Since the 1970s, antitrust law has been focused on the “consumer welfare standard.” This is the idea that business concentration doesn’t matter as long as consumers aren’t harmed. But under this standard, too much attention has been paid to monetary costs, and not enough to the other kinds of harms that result from a lack of competition.
Take privacy. Dominant services like Google and Facebook claim to deliver high consumer value because they are “free.” And while it’s true that they don’t require a monetary exchange, they do demand that consumers provide something often more valuable — information. These tech platforms remain opaque about what data is collected and how it is traded and monetized. As a result, anyone who uses Google or Facebook actually has no idea what they are paying for the service.
Another important, non-monetary cost is the lack of choice and innovation. When conduct by dominant companies deprive consumers of options in a market, they are immediately harmed.
Look at local news. More than 1,800 news publishers have disappeared over the last 15 years, and it is estimated that there are at least 2,000 “news deserts” across the country — communities without a single local newspaper. And that’s just the beginning. Unless we change the digital marketplace for journalism, we are going to see huge areas of the country — including many major cities — without local reporters very soon. For people who want to read quality information about local politics or schools, the market’s answer will be, “You’re out of luck.” No choice.
News publishers are innovating like crazy and rushing to emphasize things like subscriptions, philanthropy and other forms of direct reader payment. That is all helpful but will also lead to a world in which communities that can pay for quality journalism will get it. Those that can’t, won’t. The challenges for underserved communities will be particularly severe.
Some argue for direct government funding for local news. Government support for networks like NPR, PBS and BBC is great, but nowhere (outside of a few authoritarian regimes) does government pay for a whole local news ecosystem. And I, for one, am not comfortable with the Fourth Estate being on a government payroll. According to a recent Knight Foundation report, at least 60% of Americans would oppose any government support for news publishing.
So that brings us back to the dominant tech giants. Most news consumption is digital and the primary way that readers get to reporting is through Google and Facebook. Those companies create no content themselves, but because of their digital dominance, they get the vast majority of the monetary and data benefit from journalism. This is the No. 1 reason readers are increasingly facing a lack of choice in local news.
So, why shouldn’t tech companies deliver more value back to local journalism — particularly when the decline in local news is so urgent? That is a core idea behind the Journalism Competition & Preservation Act that has been introduced in both the House and the Senate. This bill would give news publishers the ability to collectively negotiate with the platforms for a better, more sustainable deal for local news. It would be a high-impact, low-cost way for the government to really help the news consumer now. A few backward-looking naysayers have complained that the bill could create a new “cartel” for local news. In the face of the market power of Google and Facebook and the extreme harm from a lack of consumer choice in local journalism, that stands as one of the most ridiculous and ironic counter-arguments of all time. Some people are just offended by the idea of anyone standing up to Big Tech.
Losing choice in local journalism is a clear harm from digital consolidation. We need a collective response that restores that choice. The alternative is a future where Big Tech decides the news for all of us.
David Chavern is the president and CEO of News Media Alliance.