Meta vs the federal government vs the media industry. Let’s talk about it. To begin from a place of transparency, this has probably been the most difficult work week I have had since starting Zee Feed in 2020. The year that I thought we would have in 2024 is definitely not going to unfold as hoped because of the digital collision we’re all hurtling towards: Meta maybe banning news content in Australia from July.

Judging by the tone of comments on Broadsheet’s recent Instagram post, I think there is a lot of confusion about why this matters. I’m going to do my best to explain – it’s very insider-type stuff, but has significant ramifications for Australian democracy so it’s worth knowing.

There are four main points you need to understand to have a complete picture of what’s going on.

1. A compromised media funding model

The problem is with the underlying business model of journalism. Media outlets make money in one of two ways:

1. The audience is a customer who directly pays the media outlet for the product (news). I.E.: Buying a newspaper or paying for a digital subscription.

2. Advertisers are the customers who directly pay the media outlet for space to tell the audience about their products. I.E.: Any type of ads and branded partnerships on radio, TV, digital or in print.

The second option – ad-supported media – is the issue right now. In theory, it should work that by producing good quality journalism a news outlet would attract a bigger audience, which means they could charge brands more to advertise to that audience, and therefore make more money that would go into producing the journalism. Seems great because the public doesn’t have to pay.

But as tech giants got bigger they offered ways for businesses to advertise directly to people without needing to buy the space from a media outlet to do so. This quickly sucked up almost all the advertising money our of the media landscape. Now, 81% of ‘media advertising’ spend in Australia goes to either Meta or Google. That leaves every news publisher or broadcaster in Australia trying to get the remaining 16% – just 16c out of every dollar.

2. Journalism is not an ordinary product

The tech giants are now competitors to Australian media outlets because they sell the same product to advertisers – the public’s attention. That’s just how capitalism operates; if someone bigger comes along and sells the same products better or cheaper, they’ll put you out of business.

But journalism isn’t an optional consumer product – it is a necessary component of democracy. A democratic country cannot let news die because of ‘market forces’, because then it would not longer be a democracy. (Of course, not all Australian media is doing its job in this regard – I’ll get to that in a moment!)

To make the situation even worse, the tech platforms taking all this money away from our news sources are not Australian companies. The government does not tax them properly – for example, Meta made $1 billion revenue in Aus, but paid only $24 million in tax (2.4%). So now we have a situation where foreign-owned mega-corporations are destabilising a pillar of Australian democracy (intentionally or not) and taking money out of the country while they do it. We can all agree this is not good?

3. A flawed solution: the Media Bargaining Code

So to try to get some of that money coming back into the media industry again, the federal government created legislation called the Media Bargaining Code. I wrote an in-depth explainer about it at the time. Short version: the government said to Meta & Google “you must pay some money to Australian news publications. Either come to agreements with them individually, or we will choose a number and force you to pay.”

Both tech giants did make some commercial deals with some media outlets – but it was mostly with the big, mainstream publishers like News Corp, Nine, the commercial TV broadcasters, the ABC, etc. Independent outlets got very little – Zee Feed was and is way too small to get anything, but even the likes of SBS was left out.

Which brings us to now: these initial deals are set to expire in June 2024. Meta said it will not be making any new deals (like it is supposed to under that new law) and it refuses to be forced to pay (like it is supposed to under that new law) so to avoid paying it will just block all news content for Australians on all its platforms.

It has already done this in Canada, where the government tried to introduce a similar law. Since June 2023, Canadian users of FB and Instagram have not been able to see content on any news-related accounts. This includes international accounts – Canadians view content from the New York Times, the BBC or The Daily Aus. You might remember that Meta gave us a lil taste of what this would be like back in 2021.

My view is that it is very likely Meta will go ahead with a news ban in Australia. And even if they allow news publications to remain on FB/IG here, they have already started restricting the reach of our content – just this week, they silently switched everyone’s account to ‘limit political content’ by default.

4. But the Media Bargaining Code is not a good solution…

The Code has always been a very flawed solution because it favours the big mainstream media outlets who already get most of the remaining 16% of ad money. Many of them are also actively undermining Australian democracy. Even though Meta, Google and other tech platforms (TikTok should be included, imo) have taken billions of dollars out of the industry, they have also helped audiences discover smaller, independent publications like Zee Feed. The Code never addressed the media diversity problem (it never intended to), but these issues go hand in hand.

So now we have a situation amongst the media industry where the Big Guys and the Little Guys are on opposing teams. If news gets booted off Instagram, this will have minimal impact on News Corp-owned news.com.au – they are so big, have been around for so long and have such an established brand that traffic might drop, but it won’t disappear altogether because people will still remember to visit the site if they need to. 7News will still be able to broadcast every night, and people will still know they can turn on the TV between 4pm and 6pm to watch the news.

But for newer publications like Zee Feed, Cheek or Missing Perspectives, we don’t have that established brand name to rely on. We have to constantly remind audiences that we exist and that you can come to our websites or podcasts. Social media has been a significant driver in raising that awareness with our audience. If that disappears, it’s becomes much harder to get our valuable work to people. If we can’t get our work to people, our audience shrinks. And if our audience shrinks too much, we go out of business.

Meta banning news could take Australian news back to looking more like it did in 2007.

That’s why you’ve been seeing so many “subscribe to our newsletter, subscribe to our podcast” posts from media accounts on Instagram lately. Having a direct connection to the media you enjoy is the best way to stay informed.

5. BONUS: Miscellaneous thoughts…

There are many other factors in this conversation. What is ‘news’? This sentiment was all over Broadsheet’s comment section. It’s a tricky question to answer. Should advertising even be the funding model for real journalism? I think these events have proven that model does not work. Journalism is expensive and labour-intensive. Ad-supported news in the digital era has led to publications chasing topics they think will get the biggest audience, rather than what’s most important for the audience to know. Switching to audience-pays means… well, you have to pay. Will you? And what about those who can’t afford to? In the current economy, that’s most of us.

And we all need to understand that anyone who posts on a digital platform is doing free labour for that digital platform. If we all have Instagram accounts, but no one posts – not influencers, not media publications, not businesses – what would we see there? Tech giants make billions of dollars by selling engaged audiences (us!) to advertisers, and the thing that engages audiences is the content. Kicking media outlets off will lower the quality and reliability of content you see on Instagram, I’m sure about that.

What does this mean for Zee Feed & for you?

While we have a website and this newsletter, a lot of Zee Feed’s validity in the market does come from the following we have on Instagram. We won’t stop publishing articles, but I’m honestly not sure what’s going to happen in the next three months. Other indie outlets are not exaggerating about how scary this moment is; the mainstream publishers are not facing the same level of threat that we are.

We are experimenting with diversification now, so if you see my face pop up elsewhere online that’s why! Know that anytime you see my name or face and choose to support, I’m channeling it into the continuation of Zee Feed as one of the few intersectional feminist publications in this country.

If you have questions about any of this at all, please do send me an email and I’ll answer as best I can.

Oh, and if you recommend our newsletter or website to your likeminded friends and family, it would mean so much 💜

– Crystal
Founder & Chief of Everything at Zee Feed
Follow me on Instagram or TikTok

Good stuff on Zee Feed rn:

Well what a wild few weeks of conspiracy and speculation that was! I think if we can take anything from the frenzy around #WhereIsKate its that shared cultural moments are very important to our social fabric and we don’t get them enough anymore! CLICK HERE TO READ.

Smart stuff on the Internet 💭

All the stuff I found on the web that made me think, smile, or have an ‘aha!’ moment. Spend your Sunday reading them – you'll be better off for it:

Whose Flag, Whose Symbol? Notes on Beyoncé, Reclamations and (Black) Lady Liberty on Ms. Magazine
Incredible deep analysis of Beyonce’s act ii controversial album cover images. “Her Act II depiction of the American flag is quite intentional… Her choice to crop the flag so that only the red stripes are depicted, thus conveying the possibilities of other flags of colonized and occupied spaces, like Liberia and Puerto Rico. This could even signify the “bleeding red stripes” of Black citizens and enslaved ancestors, as artist Faith Ringgold once visualized through her artwork ‘The Flag Is Bleeding.’”

It’s a good thing if Trump doesn’t like us on The Australia Institute
Very good one by Dr Emma Shortis. “What would it be like to “cosy up” to an authoritarian who threatens a ‘bloodbath’ if he doesn’t get the power he wants? What would it look like to be tied to a man who wants ‘my people’ to ‘sit up at attention’ like the North Koreans do for Kim Jong Un? What would it look like to support unconditionally a man who tells Vladimir Putin to ‘do whatever the hell you want’?"

Can you separate the art from the artist? in Meanjin
“The now-common adage that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism should be a call to participate in challenging structures of oppression and exploitation, not an invitation to mentally dust one’s hands of any responsibility. Art—even so-called ‘genius’ art—is not immune to this.”

If you found this email thought-provoking, will you share it with a friend? Sharing helps us grow 🌱 and makes you look really smart.