Since the tail end of 2020, many Australians were informed by Google of a political stoush between big news corporations and the tech company behind our favourite search engine. The open letter to end users read like a doomsday spiel – spelling out the encroaching disaster if a mandatory news code came into effect. The proposed legislation – the News Media Bargaining Code – was explained as a means of paying for news content when all that Google did was provide the necessary links for people to ‘choose’ what content they actively consumed. Google also advised that the News Media Bargaining Code would make it unfair for small businesses as larger media companies would be informed of algorithm changes ahead of time and be given data on users to maximise coverage.

A grim picture was painted. Why should big news media companies receive data and information about everyday users of a search engine? Why should their links be propped up higher than other smaller outlets?

At the start of 2021, after a Senate hearing, Google also warned that the proposed legislation might lead to the removal of Google Search in its entirety in Australia. Why? Because why should it pay to just provide a multitude of links based off whatever a person is searching for?

I know that as a writer, most of my searches aren’t news related. In fact, they’re mostly about things people wore in the 18^th to 19^th century. I ask the internet when doorknobs were invented or the nature of horse care. There was even one enquiry that might have put me on alert lists across the world: how long does it take for a body disposed in water to rise to the surface?

But that was important for a very singular scene in my story, all right! Murder happens in my stories! I just want to make sure that I’ve got all the facts right as well as the science!

What Google, and by extension Facebook, failed to address was the uneven distribution of ad revenue when it comes to large news media. With the advent of the internet, it’s become much harder for traditional newspapers and television stations to accrue the wealth they had.

The news media Bargaining Code however would force huge tech giants to negotiate with each individual news corporation and find a way to ensure a ‘fair’ means of distributing ad revenue by entering into commercial agreements or be subjected to arbitration. In this way, jobs could be kept and journalism could be regarded, once again, as the respected profession that it should be. So, to be honest, it does sound like a noble thing to do in order to support struggling companies.

As for my personal opinion? Well, I’ll be honest with you. I’m not entirely swayed by any one side. There are pros and cons to each.

My own experience with the search engine is indicative of this. The only time I’ve used Google to search for the news is when I’ve been too lazy to memorise the actual link for ABC News. Otherwise, it’s very easy to simply type into your browser: news.com.au or smh.com.au

Often, I feel that the one great problem with these news websites is their inability to modernise and to accommodate a generation that prefers immediacy. A lot of news websites, based off the newspapers that are still being published, have arbitrary gatekeeping with regards to the number of ‘free’ articles that can be viewed each month and an exorbitant subscription fee.

Let’s, for the sake of argument, use the Sydney Morning Herald as an example. Most of their articles on their main website have intriguing headlines and a small excerpt for what the article is about. One can easily get the gist of the content readily available simply by skimming over the content. There’s no mystery or anything too attention grabbing.

If one were curious and wished to learn more, they’d simply click open the article.

But this is where the Sydney Morning Herald falters a little.

Ad revenue, as most people know, is driven by clicks. The more clicks an end-user makes, the more money a company can make. Perhaps, it’s true, that news corporations could make a few more dollars by partnering with search engines to ensure that ads on their website are linked to whatever other websites that the end-user was previously poring over. After all, I’m not as interested in say a NAB home loan than a new game that’s come out.

Yet the crux of the matter comes from the very fact that the Sydney Morning Herald only allows five ‘free’ articles per month. In order to get around that, one needs to ‘subscribe.’ And the subscriptions aren’t very cheap. Particularly for the younger generation. $3.50 a week sounds nice, but if you add it all up, it can be quite significant. Annually, the Starter Digital is $160 per year.

Not a choice most people are willing to dip their toes in when they also have to pay for Netflix, Stan, Disney+ and a whole host of other things that catch their eye.

So, how does something like the Sydney Morning Herald make money when paper is all but dead? One thing they could implement is additional ads on their website and perhaps at the top and bottom of their articles. They could also stop hiding their articles behind paywalls. No student has the money to pay for it, particularly when they’re only using the website for a school project.

Lower your subscriptions and give more back to the consumer. Make it more appealing.

News.com.au might not have the cleanest reputation, but their headlines catch the eye. It might be click-baity as all hell, but in this day and age, it’s what helps it to survive.

It’s not a perfect solution, true, but it might give them a little bit more of a boost.

And instead of only relying on the written word, it might be prudent now to create more videos to elucidate the topics they want to explore. Particularly when it comes to news that most consumers want on a more instantaneous basis. These days, video streaming is the way to go. Three-minute or five-minute videos are pretty easily digestible. And a lot of it can be monetised. It might not be a huge amount of money, but every little thing counts.

Investigative journalism, on the other hand, would need to be well researched and thought out. You can have a written article and transcript or you could have a well-plotted fifteen-minute video. The dialogue needs to be snappy yet informative. News needs to learn how to target their audiences instead of catering only to the older generation.

As for recaps of movies or television shows? You can’t go wrong with James Weir and his commentary. I might not watch Married at First Sight or the Bachelor, but I’d almost definitely read his recap of the episodes because of his biting comments and snide observations.

APPEAL TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR!

Make your websites lively. Make them relevant. Grab the attention of millennials and Generation Z instead of pandering to baby boomers.

Beyond that, find ways to adapt in the current marketplace. So many YouTube creators have to constantly find ways to get around changes to the YouTube algorithm. They complain, sure, but in order to be fair, no one content creator should be told what the changes will be beforehand.

Above all else, negotiate in good faith. And stand your ground. Google and Facebook should not just threaten to remove their services from the good people of Australia just for few million dollars in ad revenue. But, there’s also no need to demand algorithms or have your links unfairly pushed to the top of Google Search and quashing smaller independent voices.

Even if Facebook were to take away the ability to share links, though, I’m sure people will still be able to make do. I know that I, for one, could very easily summarise an article that I’ve read. And if someone wanted links…well…I’m sure I could devise a method to provide an alternate solution to do so. 

In any case, depending on how Google reacts, this humble blogger might have to think about investing in a VPN. Which, unfortunately, might see local Australian businesses suffer because the massive search engine I’m using would be defaulted to another country somewhere in the vast piece of rock we call home. Of course, in saying that, we do still have Bing. So, you know what? Everyone, it’s time to put Bing on the map and make it a serious contender against Google.

So, despite my limited understanding of the entire kerfuffle that’s been kicked up between Google and traditional news media, that is my two cents on the situation. Greed is not good. And don’t use a good honest people as hostages to the regulation of the wild west internet.

Edit: By the time this post goes up, Google has come to several agreements with major news corporations in Australia whilst Facebook has removed all news content for Australians. Which means no sharing of links to news websites for all of us down under.

Unfortunately, news wasn’t properly defined and so many other pages had their posts wiped, such as emergency services and a member of parliament. Here’s hoping that Facebook will also put a stop on conspiracy pages and anti-vaxxer propaganda.

Further edit: After a week of removing news content, Facebook has reversed its decision.