At the end of our September print-edition cover story, about the proposed Prescott Preserve in Palm Springs, there’s a quote from Shaun Murphy, the attorney representing Mesquite Country Club residents, regarding a possible compromise with the Oswit Land Trust.
“A good settlement is one where nobody’s happy, right?” Murphy said.
If the key to a good settlement is nobody being happy, the agreement between Google and the state of California regarding journalism funding is indeed a good settlement—because a whole lot of people are unhappy with it.
Here’s how the Los Angeles Times described the agreement between Google and the state of California: “The plan lays out a commitment of nearly $250 million over the next five years, with just over one-fourth of the money coming from state taxpayers and the remainder coming from Google and possibly other private donors. The money will go toward two new initiatives administered by UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism: a fund to distribute millions of dollars to California news outlets, and an ‘AI accelerator’ to develop ways for journalists to use the powerful technology. … As part of the agreement, the state will put $30 million from next year’s budget into the fund, and contribute $10 million in each of the next four years. Google will put $15 million into the fund next year, and pay another $15 million next year to support other journalism initiatives: $5 million for the AI accelerator and $10 million in direct donations to digital news outlets. In each of the next four years, Google commitments include putting $10 million into the new fund and continuing $10 million in direct donations to news outlets.”
Many legislators, newsroom unions and publishers are expressing disappointment and even anger over this deal, saying Google and other tech companies are getting off way too easy. Others, like the California News Publishers Association, are offering tepid endorsements of the deal. A few parties seem genuinely satisfied with it—such as Google and Gov. Gavin Newsom (whose involvement hints that he may not have signed Assembly Bill 886, the so-called California Journalism Preservation Act, or Senate Bill 1327, a bill that would have taxed Amazon, Meta and Google to fund journalism, had they been set to his desk). The Local Independent Online News Publishers encouraged California members—including the Independent—to write Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, the sponsor of AB 886, expressing support for the framework of the deal. I did indeed write such a letter.
Why did I express support for the framework? Three reasons.
• The things in this agreement will almost certainly come to be. AB 886 or SB 1327 could have been vetoed or delayed for years in court.
• As I have previously mentioned: AB 886, while undeniably well-intentioned, would have been a big giveaway to truly terrible companies like Gannett (the parent company of The Desert Sun), the Alden Global Capital hedge fund (owner of the dailies in San Diego, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange County, San Jose and others) and the Chatham Asset Management hedge fund (owner of the dailies in Sacramento, Fresno, Modesto and others). While AB 886 had a requirement that 70 percent of the funds be spent on journalists and support staff, I have no doubt these companies—which have proven time and again that they’re concerned about maximizing short-term profits, not journalism—would have found ways to NOT spend much of that money on journalism.
• Big tech does not deserve much of the blame for newspapers’ woes. How is linking to news stories and selling ads around those search results “theft”? While Google and Facebook were creating innovative products around which to sell advertising (albeit in apparent violation of antitrust laws, in Google’s case), the aforementioned terrible newspaper companies and their precursors were worried more about maintaining huge profit margins than investing in their products.
Will this agreement save journalism in California? No. Will it help a lot of news publishers, particularly smaller ones like the Independent? Yes. Is this a huge giveaway to terrible, awful hedge funds? Thank goodness, no. So I am happy with this deal … kinda.
Is this battle over? Definitely not.
Note: This is a slightly edited version of the editor’s note that appeared in the September 2024 print edition. Much of this was originally published online in the Aug. 22 Indy Digest.
