New Jersey and California learn that what the government giveth, the government can taketh away

Illustration by ChatGPT

There are two problems with direct government funding of journalism. The first is that it opens the door to government interference. The second is that, even if safeguards are built in to protect independence, the money can be reduced or cut off in the event of a crisis.

That is exactly what is happening in New Jersey and California. In the former, that state’s Civic Information Consortium, a pioneering effort to distribute taxpayer funds for journalism and other types of storytelling, is in danger of being zeroed out after receiving $3 million this past year. In the latter, a deal that California officials had reached with Google to pay for news is starting to come apart.

Speaking of monetizing the news: Your $6 a month will keep this free source of news and commentary thriving — and you’ll receive a weekly newsletter with all sorts of exclusive goodies. Just click here.

New Jersey’s Democratic governor, Phil Murphy, has proposed getting rid of the funding in his budget for fiscal year 2026. The consortium calls it “a potentially devastating blow to local media and civic information access across the state. Without this funding, NJCIC’s critical work could cease.”

Since it was launched in 2021, the consortium has granted some $9 million to 56 organizations. It’s administered by an independent board appointed by the governor and run out of Montclair State University. Ellen Clegg and I wrote about it in our book, “What Works in Community News.”

Murphy declined to comment on the cut when contacted by Terrence T. McDonald of the New Jersey Monitor, but McDonald noted that the governor’s office had said earlier this year that his budget proposal would include “some belt-tightening.” Even so, McDonald observed that next year’s budget was on track to be larger than the current year’s.

The California situation stems from a much-criticized deal that the state cut with Google last year. According to Jeanne Kuang of CalMatters, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has reduced a $30 million allocation to help pay for local news to just $10 million for the coming year as he wrestles with a $12 billion deficit.

That, in turn, trigged a cut by Google from $15 million to $10 million. The money — now just $20 million instead of $45 million — will be administered by a newly formed California Civic Media Fund, which Kuang writes will comprise “a board of publisher representatives to determine how to distribute it.”

California’s five-year deal with Google was reached after the state abandoned efforts to pass legislation that would have taxed Google for the news that it repurposes. One version of the tax would have brought in $500 million a year.

There are all kinds of problems with what essentially amounts to a link tax, started with the reality that news publishers benefit when Google links to their content. Users who click through encounter those publishers’ advertising, or may even be induced to subscribe if they have a paywall.

Now publishers are facing a much deeper threat from Google, as the search giant is going all-in on artificial intelligence, thus eliminating the need to click through.

“Links were the last redeeming quality of search that gave publishers traffic and revenue,” Danielle Coffey, the CEO and president of News/Media Alliance, said in a statement reported by The Verge. “Now Google just takes content by force and uses it with no return, the definition of theft. The DOJ remedies must address this to prevent continued domination of the internet by one company.”

“DOJ remedies” is a reference to recommendations by the Department of Justice after Google recently lost two separate antitrust cases.

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.

Is Ezra Klein’s call for Biden to stand aside realistic or desirable? Probably not.

Then-candidate Joe Biden. Photo (cc) 2019 by Matt Johnson.

You may have heard that Ezra Klein has called for President Biden to pull out of the campaign and let a younger generation of Democrats compete for the nomination. Klein, who hosts a podcast and writes commentaries for The New York Times, is someone I look to for guidance. This isn’t just the Times being the Times; Klein was a prominent thinker and commentator before coming to the Times, and he will continue to be long after he leaves.

You can listen or read what Klein has to say here. There’s not a lot of analysis I want to add except to say that he’s thought through most of the objections. He believes Biden has been an effective president and could continue to be in a second term, but that his age has become a real obstacle to his re-election — and that the stakes are way too high to take the chance that Donald Trump could return to the White House. Yes, Trump is nearly as old, far more addled, and, unlike Biden, faces 91 criminal charges and has all but pledged to rule as an authoritarian. Klein believes that anything that keeps Trump out of power is worth doing, even if it means somehow persuading Biden to call it a career.

Please consider becoming a supporter of Media Nation for $5 a month. You’ll receive a weekly newsletter with exclusive early content, a roundup of the week’s posts, photography and even a song of the week. Just click here.

Probably my main objection to Klein’s idea is that it’s so late. If Biden had pulled out a year ago, we could have had a proper primary campaign. So what is Klein’s alternative? Throwing it to the Democratic National Convention in August, a truly risky move. “There is a ton of talent in the Democratic Party right now,” Klein writes, and he offers a long list that, intriguingly, omits California Gov. Gavin Newsom and includes Georgia Sen. Ralph Warnock. I’m skeptical of Newsom, and I have to say that I like the idea of Warnock.*

Another problem that Klein has given some thought to is what to do about Vice President Kamala Harris. His answer is that she is a better and more appealing politician than she’s generally given credit for, and that she could compete at the convention like everyone else. If she wins, she wins; if she loses, that’s not a reason to believe that the party would be torn apart. I’m not so sure about that, but Klein puts it this way:

Could it go badly? Sure. But that doesn’t mean it will go badly. It could make the Democrats into the most exciting political show on earth. And over there on the other side will be Trump getting nominated and a who’s who of MAGA types slavering over his leadership. The best of the Democratic Party against the worst of the Republican Party. A party that actually listened to the voters against a party that denies the outcome of the elections. A party that did something different over a party that has again nominated a threat to democracy who has never — not once — won the popular vote in a general election.

I’d say my biggest objection is that Klein would reward special counsel Robert Hur, who recently cleared Biden of criminal wrongdoing in his retention of classified documents but then gratuitously smeared him by suggesting that the president is senile. It was a gross example of prosecutorial misconduct. But that doesn’t mean concerns about Biden’s age aren’t real. As Klein notes, he may be sharp and focused in private (just ask Kevin McCarthy), but he’s slowed down in public, and his own campaign seems to be trying to hide him from scrutiny.

The issues involved are difficult to sort out. In addition to Hur’s actions, which ought to be investigated, there is also the media’s wildly disproportionate coverage of Biden’s age. It’s a legitimate story, of course, but it’s gotten far too much attention when compared with more important stories, many of them having to do with Trump’s dangerous and outrageous pronouncements. In addition, the notion that Biden will stand down is almost certainly wishful thinking — that is, if you’re even wishing for it. “The sky is blue and Joe Biden is going to be the Democratic Party’s nominee,” as Josh Marshall puts it.

Anyway, Ezra Klein’s piece is worth a read or a listen at least as a thought exercise. It seems pretty obvious that if we’re going to stop Trump, it’s going to have to be with Biden. But Klein’s counter-factual is pretty interesting.

*Correction: I swear I can’t read. Newsom is on Klein’s list. I’m still skeptical of him, though.

Leave a comment | Read comments