Protecting Journalism: Policy Ideation in an Evolving Media Environment
As the “fourth estate of politics”, journalism upholds citizen, corporate and state’s information intake from our daily consumption of the morning news to advising international government decisions. The meaning of journalism and constituents of information sharing have evolved with the incorporation of media and accessible public opinion. However, while the core spirit of gathering, and disseminating news remains the same, traditional journalism has a key focus on objectivity and fairness, advising our general public media discourse - the fifth estate of politics.
News outlets challenge our beliefs and provide insight into current events, holding individuals in power accountable. Journalism is a tool to educate and inform citizen parties of a nation; a vital pillar of our democracy. This fact is theoretically undeniable. However, in our modern media environment, news and information sharing on online platforms participate in shaping harmful political phenomena. Our current media climate is shaped by not only large platforms but the way an individual interacts with this information. Our “fifth estate” is also often described as a threat to traditional journalism as there are additional nuances in this broader technological stage. Within this environment, it’s clear now more than ever; we must protect our news content’s producers and distributors. However, other important factors add layers of nuance to this conversation.
Fast Media and Mitigating Disinformation
Short-form content is the new revolutionary form of information consumption. It’s not uncommon to hear individuals getting their daily news intake from a TikTok, and increasingly more platforms are following suit, incorporating their own short-form rendition. As mentioned in the 2023 Digital New Report published by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, around 20% of 18 to 20-year-olds utilize TikTok as a main news source, a 5% increase from the previous year, and their primary source of news consumption.
TikTok users dedicate increasingly less attention to mainstream news outlets as a primary news source. This short-form content enables an increased consumption of media which exacerbates misinformation, intentional and unintentional alike. Experts commented on the correlation between misinformation and short-form content, specifically platforms such as TikTok. Time and critical thinking are crucial in differentiating right and wrong to form educated political opinions. Increasing individual’s access to diverse, and trustworthy news sources creates a more objectively knowledgeable society. This is found in the foundation of research and information gathering. It can filter bias from truth, differentiate fact from fiction, and define well-informed political citizenship.
Addressing Predatory Media Algorithms
To increase user retention media platforms often feed into similar content, showing individuals politicized propaganda that furthers particular agendas. This has been a common occurrence with recent media platforms; however, media algorithms can be harmful to one’s consumption of the news. Firstly, there are important points to address regarding theories of increase in political polarization with social media echo chambers. This concept is further explored by The War on Tolerance, reiterating the harm modern social media algorithms have caused to our democracy.
Additionally, the favoring of certain sources and political agendas subconsciously drives audiences toward rejecting other opinions. This restricts the reach of different news sources to audiences, pushing individuals from accessing a diverse variety. Re-feeding information and bias hinders a full holistic understanding of political events. On a corporate level, re-platforming news sources equitably while emphasizing the necessity of diverse political views is important. Media algorithms have the power to change mass perspectives and access to a wide range of news sources is a crucial step.
Bill C-18 - A Step Backwards or Forwards?
Understanding the importance of journalism in our modern age, governments have progressed towards ideating policies to support news outlets. Policies have been passed by France and Australia with their News Media Bargaining Code setting the precedent. Recently, Canada pushed the Online News Act with Germany and the UK also following suit, discussing the potential of similar bills. Bill C-18 was introduced by the Liberal Party of Canada in April 2022 and passed on July 22nd 2023. The bill installed a system of mediation between news outlets and companies with larger media corporations through revenue allocation. Media platforms would be required to pay earned revenue back to journalism sources registered with the government. This focus of the Canadian government has been one in consideration around the world; How can governments successfully bolster funding for journalism? Furthermore, does the strategy of bridging the gap between news outlets and online communication intermediaries successfully address other modern issues with news content? Let’s deep dive into the main elements of the policy.
A New Middleman
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Committee (CRTC) is the party that will mediate between news outlets and communication intermediaries. The discussions will aim to introduce fair financial compensation for news outlets along with mediating issues regarding intellectual property rights. This mediation from a third governmental party will ensure that news outlets aren’t being taken advantage of in conversations. Privatized efforts have been launched by media platforms to support news outlets and different perspectives of the media. One of these projects is the Google News Showcase program. Google reported around 250 million CAD worth of cost-free site linking and partnered with around 150 news outlets. However, reports have come out regarding short-sighted planning as many smaller news firms have been excluded from the private negotiations. Furthermore, media platforms have the ability to fund news outlets based on their agendas, giving priority to those that support corporate interest compared to the good of all. The CRTC’s involvement, implemented equitably, would stand as an objective mediator, mitigating the potential of stakeholder bias. However, this extra step will take time and funding of around 5.6 million CAD over 5 years from the Canadian government, and with the wide amount of platforms and news outlets it is projected to take years before negotiations are set.
Reallocating Revenue for Whom?
A major aim of the Canadian government is to fund journalism in a market where revenue is disproportionately held by intermediary platforms. Spreading of information by social media influencers and companies renders the market for news sharing more saturated than ever, decreasing revenue from journalists. By increasing funding for our news sources, we can bolster their business functions. According to the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the overall increase in revenue for firms is 329 million CAD with around 81 million CAD dedicated to qualified Canadian journalism organizations (QCJOs) and 248 million CAD for broadcasters. This boost can be pivotal to improving the efforts of many journalism sources, however, the firm must be categorized as a QCJO in order to qualify under Bill C-18. Outlets that aren’t registered with the government will become severely disadvantaged, and it also creates borders for new journalist organizations to incorporate successfully in the market as they have a lower hand in funding. Furthermore, funding would also be disproportionately allocated towards larger firms with the larger internet traffic within negotiations, leaving out smaller firms.
Retaliation from Large Media Platforms
Since the implementation of Bill C-18, Meta and Google released public statements expressing disapproval of the Canadian Government’s measures and retaliated by pulling Canadian news from their platforms. While Canadian news is still available on Google, this has been extremely harmful for social media platforms, Instagram, and Facebook, as an accessible place for many to get day-to-day news. This calls into question whether this current removal of Canadian news on media platforms is worth the Bill, especially with the recent north-west Canadian wildfires. Civilian access to news can mean life or death under these circumstances.
The Larger Picture
As apparent with our modern consumption of media and news, it’s important to hold corporations and individuals responsible for sharing unbiased and objective information. Disseminating information in our current environment is carried through the channels of media algorithms, resharing, and third-party influencers which dictate what is seen, distributed, and given importance to. Information sharing and news have the power to change public opinion, shape elections and educate the masses - both upholding and impairing our democracy in different ways. While providing a source of revenue and boosting the production of our information, the focus of Bill C-18, once again, participates in reducing competition in the news content market and potentially politicizes major journalist organizations. We’ve seen retaliation from media platform firms that all continue to disadvantage objective voices and access to news for individuals.
Bill C-18 inadvertently exacerbates the very issues that journalism in the media is facing, which calls into question the future of policy-making to protect our news sources. What are the government's next steps in this tricky playing ground, and how can we address and hold major stakeholders accountable to create an equitable and unbiased news playing ground? The government, while focusing on the producers, overlooks significant issues faced by the consumers of information. Journalism keeps our nation informed to not only encourage political competition but studies have found that an increase in journalism and news coverage, increases the amount of voters in an election. Media users must also be cognizant about news sources, the information they consume and its political notions and online content producers aware of the impacts and connotations polarizing and incorrect political news can have. The benefits of our fourth and fifth estates of politics are clear. At the core, this issue is not only about protecting new’s contents producers and distributors, but about protecting our democracy on all sides of the story.