Facebook – Media Nation

In a lawsuit against Meta, the state’s highest court will rule on the limits of Section 230

Attorney General Andrea Campbell. Photo (cc) 2022 by Dan Kennedy.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects website owners from liability over third-party content. The classic example would be an anonymous commenter who libels someone. The offended party would be able to sue the commenter but not the publishing platform, although the platform might be required to turn over information that would help identify the commenter.

Sign up for free email delivery of Media Nation. You can also become a supporter for just $6 a month and receive a weekly newsletter with exclusive content.

But where is the line between passively hosting third-party content and activity promoting certain types of material in order to boost engagement and, thus, profitability? That question will go before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on Friday, reports Jennifer Smith of CommonWealth Beacon.

At issue is a lawsuit brought against Meta by 42 state attorneys general, including Andrea Campbell of Massachusetts. Meta operates Facebook, Instagram, Threads and other social media platforms, and it has long been criticized for using algorithms and other tactics that keep users hooked on content that, in some cases, provokes anger and depression, even suicide. Smith writes:

The Massachusetts complaint alleges that Meta violated state consumer protection law and created a public nuisance by deliberately designing Instagram with features like infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, and “like” buttons to addict young users, then falsely represented the platform’s safety to the public. The company has also been reckless with age verification, the AG argues, and allowed children under 13 years old to access its content.

Meta and its allies counter that Section 230 protects not just the third-party content they host but also how Facebook et al. display that content to its users.

In an accompanying opinion piece, attorney Megan Iorio of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, computer scientist Laura Edelson of Northeastern University and policy analyst Yaël Eisenstat of Cybersecurity for Democracy argue that Section 230 was not designed to protect website operators from putting their thumbs on the scales to favor one type of third-party content over another. As they put it in describing the amicus brief they have filed:

Our brief explains how the platform features at the heart of the Commonwealth’s case — things like infinite scroll, autoplay, the timing and batching of push notifications, and other tactics borrowed from the gambling industry — have nothing to do with content moderation; they are designed to elicit a behavior on the part of the user that furthers the company’s own business goals.

As Smith makes clear, this is a long and complex legal action, and the SJC is being asked to rule only on the narrow question of whether Campbell can move ahead with the lawsuit to which she has lent the state’s support. (Double disclosure: I am a member of CommonWealth Beacon’s editorial advisory aboard as well as a fellow Northeastern professor.)

I’ve long argued (as I did in this GBH News commentary from 2020) that, just as a matter of logic, favoring some types of content over others is a publishing activity that goes beyond the mere passive hosting of third-party content, and thus website operators should be liable for whatever harm those decisions create. That argument has not found much support in the courts, however. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Seems like old times: Facebook is once again inflicting harm on the rest of us, this time using AI

This AI image of “Big sis Billie” was generated by Meta AI at the prompting of a Reuters journalist.

There was a time when it seemed like every other week I was writing about some terrible thing we had learned about Facebook or one of Meta’s other platforms.

There was Facebook’s complicity in the genocide of the Rohingya people in Myanmar. Or the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which the personal data of millions of people on Facebook was hoovered up so that Steve Bannon could target political ads to them. Or Instagram’s ties to depression among teenage girls.

Sign up for free email delivery of Media Nation. You can also become a supporter for just $6 a month and receive a weekly newsletter with exclusive content.

Now Jeff Horwitz, who uncovered much of Facebook’s nefarious behavior when he was at The Wall Street Journal, is back with an in-depth report for Reuters on how Meta’s use of artificial intelligence led to the accidental death of a mentally disabled man and how it’s being used to seduce children as well.

The man, a 76-year-old stroke survivor named Thongbue Wongbandue, suffered fatal injuries when he fell while running for a train so that he could meet his AI-generated paramour, “Big sis Billie,” who had repeatedly assured Wongbandue in their online encounters that she was real.

As for interactions with children, Horwitz writes:

An internal Meta policy document seen by Reuters as well as interviews with people familiar with its chatbot training show that the company’s policies have treated romantic overtures as a feature of its generative AI products, which are available to users aged 13 and older.

“It is acceptable to engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual,” according to Meta’s “GenAI: Content Risk Standards.” The standards are used by Meta staff and contractors who build and train the company’s generative AI products, defining what they should and shouldn’t treat as permissible chatbot behavior. Meta said it struck that provision after Reuters inquired about the document earlier this month.

Yes, the Zuckerborg’s strategy going back many years now is to back off when caught — and then move on to some other antisocial business practice.

Ever since Elon Musk bought Twitter, and especially during his brief, chaotic stint in the Trump White House, Mark Zuckerberg has gotten something of a free pass. Just this week it was announced that Threads, a Meta product launched for users who were fleeing Twitter, now has 400 million active monthly users, making it about two-thirds as large as Twitter/X. (An independent alternative, Bluesky, trails far behind.)

Well, Zuckerberg is still out there wreaking havoc, and AI has given him (and Musk and all the rest) a new toy with which to make money while harming the rest of us.

How news outlets may benefit from a ruling that Google’s ad tech violates antitrust law

To the extent that news organizations have been able to overcome the collapse of advertising caused by the rise of giant tech platforms, it’s through two imperfect methods.

For-profits, especially larger newspapers, charge for digital subscriptions and try to maintain a baseline level of print advertising, which has maintained at least some of its value.
Nonprofits, many of them digital-only, pursue large gifts and grants while attempting to induce their audience to pay for voluntary memberships, often for goodies like premium newsletters.

At the same time, though, news publishers have continued to look longingly at what might have been. When journalism started moving online 30 years ago, the assumption was that news outlets would continue to control much of that advertising.

Become a supporter of this free source of news and commentary for just $5 a month. You’ll receive a weekly newsletter with all sorts of exclusive content.

Those hopes were cut short. And in large measure, that’s because Google — according to publishers — established a monopoly over digital advertising that news organizations couldn’t crack. Now we’re getting a glimpse of a possible alternative universe, because last week a federal district-court judge agreed, at least in part.

I’ve read several accounts of Judge Leonie Brinkema’s 115-page ruling on an antitrust suit brought by the U.S. Justice Department and eight states (but not Massachusetts). It’s confusing, but I thought this account by David McCabe in The New York Times (gift link) was clearer than some, so I’m relying on it here. I’ll begin with this:

The government argued in its case that Google had a monopoly over three parts of the online advertising market: the tools used by online publishers, like news sites, to host open ad space; the tools advertisers use to buy that ad space; and the software that facilitates those transactions.

In other words, the suit claimed that Google controlled both ends of the market as well as the middleman software that makes it happen. Judge Brinkema agreed with the first two propositions but disagreed with the third, saying, in McCabe’s words, that “the government had failed to prove that it constituted a real and defined market.”

Brinkema put it this way: “In addition to depriving rivals of the ability to compete, this exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google’s publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web.”

Lee-Anne Mulholland, a Google vice president, said in response, “We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half.” I’m pretty sure that losing two out of three is two-thirds, but whatever.

Brinkema will now consider the government’s demand that Google’s ad business be broken up. But given that the company has already said it will appeal, it could be a long time — like, on the order of years — before anything comes of this. Same with an earlier ruling in a different courtroom that Google’s search constitutes an illegal monopoly, which is also the subject of hearings this week.

The News/Media Alliance, a lobbying group for the news business, praised Brinkema’s ruling, saying:

The News/Media Alliance has spent years advocating on behalf of news media publishers against Google’s unlawfully anticompetitive actions. We are strongly supportive of a similar lawsuit in Texas that will follow, as well as the Gannett lawsuit currently being litigated on the same issues. Much of this was prompted in the House Report that documented Google’s abuse in the ad tech ecosystem, the scope of which is wide-reaching.

As the organization observes, Google’s ad tech has been the subject of several suits by the newspaper business. One of them names Facebook as a co-defendant, claiming that the Zuckerborg chose to collude with Google rather than compete directly. Gannett’s suit, on the other hand, only names Google.

The News/Media Alliance also continues to push for passage of the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, a pet project of Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana.

The proposal, which never gained much traction and is surely all but dead with Donald Trump back in the White House, would force Google and Facebook to pay for the journalism they repurpose. The legislation is problematic for many reasons, not least that Facebook has made it clear it would rather remove news from its various platforms, as it has done in Canada, than pay for it.

Punishing Google for clearly defined legal violations is a much cleaner solution. Let’s hope Judge Brinkema’s ruling survives the appeals process — not to mention whatever idea starts rattling around Trump’s head to reward Google as a favor for CEO Sundar Pichai’s $1 million kiss. Perhaps this can be the start of making advertising great again.

Another Mass. judge orders a magazine to turn over its reporting materials; plus, media notes

Illustration produced by AI using DALL-E

One step forward, one step back.

Less than two weeks after state Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone reversed herself and ruled that Boston magazine reporter Gretchen Voss did not have to turn over notes she took during an off-the-record interview with murder suspect Karen Read, another judge is demanding that a journalist assist prosecutors in a different murder case.

On Monday, Superior Court Judge William Sullivan ordered that The New Yorker produce audio recordings of interviews with the husband of Lindsay Clancy, who’s been charged in the killing of her three children at their Duxbury home.

And there’s more, according to Boston Globe reporter Travis Andersen, who writes that the magazine will be required to produce “all audio recordings of Patrick Clancy, two of his relatives, and two friends who spoke to the magazine for a story that ran in October” as well as “relevant interview notes, text messages, voicemails, and emails in possession of the publisher or reporter Eren Orbey.” Orbey’s story on the Clancy case was published last October.

I would assume that The New Yorker and its corporate owner, Condé Nast, will appeal, although the Globe story doesn’t address that issue. Last Friday, Charlie McKenna of MassLive reported that Judge Sullivan had allowed the prosecution’s motion for The New Yorker’s reporting materials and that Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, did not object. The magazine had not responded to the demand, a prosecutor told Sullivan.

There is no First Amendment right for reporters to protect their confidential sources or, as in this case, their reporting materials. Massachusetts does not have a shield law, and protections based on state court precedent are regarded as weak.

The problem is that forcing reporters to turn over their notes, recordings and other materials transforms them into an arm of the prosecution and interferes with their ability to do serve as an independent monitor of power. Sullivan made the wrong call, and I hope he — like Judge Cannone — has second thoughts.

Media notes

• That didn’t take long. After Google Maps changed “Gulf of Mexico” to “Gulf of America,” opponents of Donald Trump took to social media to announce that they were moving to other platforms. Well, on Tuesday evening Microsoft and Apple began to follow suit. Honestly, no one should have been surprised.

• The fracturing continues. BuzzFeed may become the latest company to unveil an alternative to Twitter/X, according to Max Tani of Semafor, as it seeks to offer “an alternative to the rightward, masculine drift of American public culture.” Well, good luck with that. After shutting down its news division, BuzzFeed is now cutting its HuffPost subsidiary. I have to say that Bluesky is working pretty well for me as my main short-form social-media outlet.

• Back to his roots. U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., is demanding answers from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg about ads running on Instagram for a program that uses artificial intelligence to create fake nude photos of real people. The ads violate Meta’s terms of service, reports Emanuel Maiberg of 404 Media. But let’s not forget that Zuckerberg created a predecessor site to Facebook as a way to rate the hotness of Harvard women.

A news outlet in Haverhill, Mass., pushes its newsletter to fight algorithmic Facebook censorship

Tim Coco, general manager of WHAV in Haverhill, Mass.

Facebook’s brain-dead algorithm is censoring important public-safety information, reports WHAV in Haverhill, Massachusetts. WHAV is a nonprofit news organization with a low-power/online radio station as well as a website.

According to WHAV general manager Tim Coco:

In the last week, a local news warning about the sinkhole along the southbound lanes of Interstate 495 near Ward Hill was flagged as spam and removed by one social media site. Another blocked WHAV story was news of possible restoration of Haverhill’s 1845-era (gun) powder house. The tech giant behind these removals piles on with intimidation by writing “Repeatedly breaking our rules can cause more account restrictions.”

Even more mind-boggling, Coco writes, is that when the Haverhill Police Department attempted to share WHAV’s item on the sinkhole, Facebook removed that, too.

This is nothing new for Facebook. In “What Works in Community News,” the book that Ellen Clegg and I wrote, we tell the story of an emergency route during a wildfire that the sheriff’s department had shared with The Mendocino Voice in Northern California. The Voice posted it on its Facebook page, one of its primary distribution channels — and then watched in alarm as it disappeared. In the excerpt below, we talked with Kate Maxwell, then the publisher of the Voice, and Adrian Fernandez Baumann, then the editor:

The sheriff’s department asked the Voice to get the word out that people living in the national forest would run into danger if they tried to evacuate through the nearby community of Covelo. It was potentially lifesaving information, but Facebook took it down. “It had like a thousand shares in an hour,” said Maxwell. “Facebook flagged that post and deleted it.” The article was restored about a half-hour later following an uproar from the community. Maxwell said she never got a good explanation of what happened, even after talking with someone from Facebook at a conference. Maybe it was because the algorithms identified it as fake news. Maybe, as Baumann speculated, it was because the article included a reference to “Indian Dick Road.”

Coco doesn’t identify Facebook as the culprit, but the screenshots that he posted are clearly from that platform. He’s asking his readers and listeners in the Haverhill area to stop relying on social media for WHAV stories and instead to subscribe directly to the news outlet’s daily email newsletter.

Coco, by the way, is in our book and has been a guest on the “What Works” podcast.

Facebook’s parent company, Meta, is also getting swamped with complaints about entirely harmless posts being removed from its Threads platform because of algorithmic decisions being made with no human involvement. I can speak from personal experience, too. Twice over the past year or so, I’ve responded to questions asking about great song lyrics, and I’ve gone with “I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die,” from Johnny Cash’s “Folsom Prison Blues.” Both time, my posts were removed from Facebook and Threads, and I was given a warning.

So let me repeat something I’ve said a number of times: News organizations should not rely on social media any more than absolutely necessary. Do what Coco is doing: Push newsletter subscriptions, because that’s a platform that you control and own.

Mark Zuckerberg bends the knee in a groveling letter over COVID and Hunter Biden’s laptop

Mark Zuckerberg.. Photo (cc) 2016 by Alessio Jacona

Mark Zuckerberg has regrets. In a letter to U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, the right-wing Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Zuckerman said he never should have allowed the Biden administration to pressure Meta into removing misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19, because we all would have been so much better off if we could more readily access conspiracy theories about the hazards of masking and the benefits of horse tranquilizer.

“I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any administration in either direction — and we’re ready to push back if something like this happens again,” Zuckerberg wrote. The Wall Street Journal’s Siobhan Hughes (free link) reports on Zuckerberg’s letter.

Here’s some analysis from Adam Clark Estes in Vox:

It’s interesting that Zuckerberg decided to dive into the free speech snake pit this week. It’s also not surprising that Republicans, who have been on a book-banning spree at schools nationwide, are propping up old facts as if they were new revelations in their ongoing quest to blame Democrats for censorship. It’s election season, and questioning reality is part of the fun.

As we enter the final two months before the election, there are fewer guardrails for misinformation in place on major social media platforms, and writing a letter about the Biden administration and censorship, Zuckerberg seems to be throwing Republicans a political grenade, something that can fire up the base and use to get mad about Democrats. In reality, though, Zuckerberg is probably just trying to keep his company out of more hot water and to continue revamping his own public image.

Zuckerberg’s abject obsequiousness comes at an interesting time. Ever since Elon Musk bought Twitter in the late 2022, Zuckerberg has tried to come across as the good guy, launching Threads to compete with Twitter and marketing it as the nice alternative to the dark forces of neo-Nazism and racism that Musk has indulged in and has promoted himself.

Now comes a reminder, as if one were needed, that it’s probably not a good idea to choose your social media platform on the basis of which billionaire owner is less evil. Is Musk worse? On balance, yes. But Zuckerberg is the sort of mogul who won’t spend one cent on improving trust and safety if it means fewer profits. And lest we forget, his track record includes passively allowing Facebook’s algorithms to promote atrocities in Myanmar against the Rohingya people, as documented by Amnesty International.

Zuckerberg’s letter also expressed regret for temporarily demoting a New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop in the closing days of the 2020 presidential campaign, which has become a crusade on the Trumpist right. But though it’s become an article of faith that the laptop was later authenticated, that’s not entirely true. It took a year and a half of hard work for The Washington Post to authenticate some of the emails on the laptop’s hard drive, and most of them remain unverified. Moreover, none of the verified emails tied Hunter’s business dealings to his father, President Biden.

Finally, Zuckerberg promised not to help with local election infrastructure anymore because “some people believe this work benefited one party over the other,” even though Zuckerberg himself said the data he’s seen shows that’s not true. So score another win for what Hillary Clinton once accurately called the “vast right-wing conspiracy.”

Earlier this summer, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a claim that the Biden administration’s pressure campaign to convince social media companies that they should remove certain content was a violation of the First Amendment, which was surely a relief to every elected official who’s ever picked up the phone and yelled at a reporter.

But it looks like the right is having its way regardless given that what is by far the largest and most influential tech platform — the operator of Facebook, Instagram, Threads and WhatsApp — has now caved.

California’s proposed deal with Google to support local news comes under criticism

The California state capitol in Sacramento. Photo (cc) 2006 by David Monniaux.

A proposal that would have required Google to pay California news outlets for the journalism that it repurposes has instead been replaced with a proposed deal that is already coming under criticism. Jeanne Kuang of CalMatters writes:

California lawmakers are abandoning an ambitious proposal to force Google to pay news companies for using their content, opting instead for a deal in which the tech giant has agreed to pay $172 million to support local media outlets and start an artificial intelligence program.

The money would be spread over five years and would be supplemented with $70 million from the state over that same time period. Google would continue paying $10 million a year to newsrooms under existing programs.

The deal apparently does not require legislative approval, though the annual appropriations that it specifies would be subject to a vote.

Gov. Gavin Newsom voiced his approval in a statement, saying: “This agreement represents a major breakthrough in ensuring the survival of newsrooms and bolstering local journalism across California — leveraging substantial tech industry resources without imposing new taxes on Californians.”

But Kuang continued:

The Media Guild of the West, which represents reporters in Southern California, slammed the agreement and accused publishers and lawmakers of folding to Google’s threats.

“Google won, a monopoly won,” said Matt Pearce, the group’s president. “This is dramatically worse than what Australia and Canada got … I don’t know of any journalist that asked for this.”

According to Los Angeles Times reporter Lauren Rosenhall’s account of the deal, agreement was struck after a drawn-out battle over a bill, AB 886, that would have extracted much more money from the tech giant:

Google threatened to remove California news content from its platform if the bill passed, and then ran ads saying the legislation would reduce Californians’ access to news.

Lobbying over the bill grew intense, with a trade association Google belongs to launching an ad campaign aimed at lawmakers that cast the legislation as a giveaway to large media corporations. Records show the Computer and Communications Industry Assn. spent $5 million on ads against AB 886 over the last two years as the bill made its way through the Legislature.

The role of government in boosting journalism through measures such as tax credits and mandates that would force Google and Facebook to hand over some of their advertising revenues has moved to the center of the ongoing discussion of what to do about the ailing local news business.

Though federal legislation has stalled repeatedly, proposals in New York and Illinois to provide tax credits to news publishers that create or retain newsroom jobs have become law.

And in Massachusetts, a proposal to revive a state commission that would study the problem and make some recommendations was the subject of a legislative hearing earlier this summer (I was among those who testified) appears to be on track.

From here to eternity: How Murdoch plans to maintain Fox as a right-wing force

If there has been one consolation about Fox News’ ongoing subversion of our political discourse — and even of democracy itself — it has been the near-certainty that 93-year-old Rupert Murdoch does not actually have a pact with the Lord of the Underworld and will at some point depart this vale of tears. His rabidly right-wing son Lachlan Murdoch, who Rupe put in charge a few years ago, is outnumbered by three of his siblings, and they reportedly have more moderate views.

Now that is in danger. On Wednesday, The New York Times published a deep dive (free link) into legal steps Murdoch is taking that are aimed at ensuring Lachlan’s continued reign after Rupert himself has departed the scene. Reporters Jim Rutenberg and Jonathan Mahler write that the old man is seeking to rewrite the terms of a trust that specifies four of his many children will share equal control of his media empire:

The trust currently hands control of the family business to the four oldest children when Mr. Murdoch dies. But he is arguing in court that only by empowering Lachlan to run the company without interference from his more politically moderate siblings can he preserve its conservative editorial bent, and thus protect its commercial value for all his heirs.

The toxic effects of a ruling in Rupert’s favor can’t be exaggerated. We in the media like to focus on how Mark Zuckerberg has profited by allowing Facebook to be weaponized by shadowy, malignant forces and how Elon Musk has transformed the cesspool that was Twitter into a far worse place that indulges far-right extremists and conspiracy theorists like, well, himself.

But Fox News is without question the single most influential player on the right, flagrantly promoting lies of omission and commission, including the Big Lie that the 2020 presidential election was somehow stolen from Donald Trump. Fox had to pay a $787 million settlement to the Dominion voting machine company for deliberately lying that Dominion had switched votes from Trump to Joe Biden. But other than firing its biggest star, Tucker Carlson, for reasons that have never been fully explained, Fox has continued on its lying, hate-mongering way.

It’s disheartening to think that this might continue long after Rupert Murdoch’s departure.

Leave a comment | Read comments

Newsletters move to the fore as tech platforms spurn community journalism

If we’ve learned anything about news publishing in recent years, it’s that the giant tech platforms are not our friends. Google is embracing artificial intelligence, which means that searching for something will soon provide you with robot-generated answers (right or wrong!), thus reducing the need to click through. Facebook is moving away from news. Twitter/X has deteriorated badly under the chaotic leadership of Elon Musk, although it still has enough clout that President Biden used it to announce he was ending his re-election campaign.

So what should publishers do instead? It’s no secret — they’re already doing it. They are using email newsletters to drive their audience to their journalism. A recent post by Andrew Rockway and Dylan Sanchez for LION (Local Independent Online News) Publishers reports that 95% of member publishers are offering newsletters, up from 81% in 2022. “The decline in referral traffic,” they write, “will likely lead to more direct engagement by publishers with their audiences.”

Some observers worry about newsletter overload as our inboxes fill up with email we may never get around to reading. That’s potentially a problem, but I think it’s a more serious problem for larger outlets, many of which send out multiple newsletters throughout the day and risk reaching a point of diminishing returns. By contrast, users will value one daily newsletter from their hyperlocal news project with links to the latest stories.

Newsletters are crucial to the success that Ellen Clegg and I have seen both in the projects we write about in our book, “What Works in Community News,” and on our podcast, “What Works: The Future of Local News.” Essentially, we’ve seen three newsletter strategies.

By far the most common approach publishers use is to offer a free newsletter aimed at driving users to their website, which may be free or subscription-based. The Massachusetts-based Bedford Citizen, for instance, sends out a daily newsletter generated by its RSS feed and a weekly human-curated newsletter. The Citizen is a free nonprofit, but once they’ve enticed you with their top-of-the-funnel newsletter, they hope they can lure you into becoming a paying member. Ellen and I interviewed executive director Teri Morrow and editor Wayne Braverman on our podcast last February.
The Colorado Sun, a statewide nonprofit, offers a series of free and paid newsletters, while the website itself is free. The paid newsletters represent an unusual twist: Some of them feature deeper reporting than you can get from the website on topics such as politics, climate change and outdoor recreation. At $22 a month for a premium membership, users pay no more than they would for a digital subscription to a daily newspaper. Editor Larry Ryckman talked about that in our most recent podcast.
In some places, the newsletter is the publication. An example of that is Burlington Buzz, a daily newsletter that covers Burlington, Massachusetts. Founder, publisher and editor Nicci Kadilak recently switched her newsletter platform from Substack to Indiegraf, and her homepage looks a lot like a standard community website — which shows that it’s a mistake to get too caught up on categories when newsletters have websites and websites have newsletters. Ellen and I talked with Nicci last year.

What’s crucial is that news publishers have direct control of the tools that they use to connect with their audience. Gone are the days when we could rely on Facebook and Twitter to reliably deliver readers to us. We have to go find them — and give them a reason to keep coming back.

Correction: Burlington Buzz has moved to Indiegraf, not Ghost.

Leave a comment | Read comments

Illinois nears enactment of tax credits and other measures to boost local news

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker. Photo (cc) 2018 by SecretName101.

The state of Illinois has taken a major step forward in trying to ease the local news crisis, with the legislature approving tax credits for publishers to hire and retain journalists; creating a 120-day cooling-off period to slow the sale of independent local news outlets to out-of-state chains; and funding scholarships for students who work at an Illinois news organization for at least two years after graduation.

Mark Caro reports for Northwestern University’s Local News Initiative that the tax credits amount to a modest $25 million over five years, but he quotes state Sen. Steve Stadelman as saying that the measure nevertheless represents a good start. “It was a tight budget year for Illinois, which always makes it difficult to pass legislation,” Stadelman, a Democrat, told Caro. “Was it as much as I wanted? No. But it showed that there’s a commitment by the state of Illinois to local journalism, and that’s significant.”

Gov. J.B. Pritzker is expected to sign the bill.

A couple of points I want to raise.

• The legislation grew out of the state’s Local Journalism Task Force, which was created by Gov. Pritzker in August 2021. Stadelman chaired that bipartisan group. Illinois was the second state to create a commission to study the local news crisis and make some recommendations. The first, you may recall, was Massachusetts; I had a hand in drafting the legislation that created it and would have been a member. But the Massachusetts commission, signed into law by then-Gov. Charlie Baker in January 2021, never got off the ground. There are some favorable rumblings coming out of Beacon Hill, though, and I hope to have better news to report at some point later this year.

• The Illinois tax credits avoid some pitfalls that developed almost immediately after New York State approved $90 million over three years. The New York credits are currently being implemented through an administrative process, and Gothamist reported recently that it’s not clear whether nonprofits and digital-only media outlets would be included, even though some prominent proponents understood that that they would be. The language is also contradictory as to whether out-of-state chains would be able to take advantage of the credits.

By contrast, the language of the Illinois legislation makes it clear that nonprofits and digital-only projects are included and that out-of-state chains are excluded.

The Illinois bill represents just part of a comprehensive package that was unveiled last February. As Caro reports, the Stadelman bill originally called for state agencies to spend half or more of their ad budget on local news outlets, but that provision was dropped.

In addition, a separate bill that would have required Google and Facebook to pay for the news that they repurpose has been put on hold depending on how things go with a similar measure in California. Forcing Big Tech to hand over some of their profits sounds appealing, but it hasn’t been working out very well elsewhere, as Facebook is getting rid of much of its news content and Google is threatening to walk away from the modest assistance it provides to journalism, such as the Google News Initiative.

Any form of government assistance for journalism has to be evaluated for whether it compromises the independence that news outlets need in order to hold public officials to account. Still, the modest action being taken in Illinois seems worth trying, at least on an experimental basis.

Leave a comment | Read comments