California’s AB Bill: Can It Save Journalism (and Annoy Big Tech) at the Same Time?

Hold onto your hats, folks, because the Golden State is at it again, shaking things up in the world of tech and media. On Tuesday evening, the California Senate Judiciary Committee made a big move, voting to advance AB , a bill with a name as catchy as its ambitions: the California Journalism Preservation Act. Think of it as David vs. Goliath, but instead of slingshots, we’re talking legislation, and instead of one giant, it’s kinda two—we’re lookin’ at you, Google and Facebook.

This bipartisan bill is like a superhero swooping in to save the day for struggling news companies. How, you ask? By making sure those tech giants, with their bottomless pockets full of digital ad revenue, finally start paying for the news content they’re slurping up and spitting out onto our screens. It’s about time, some might say.

The Lowdown on AB : What’s the Deal?

Okay, let’s break this down. AB is basically giving Google and Facebook two options (because even tech giants love a good ol’ fashioned “choose your own adventure”):

• Option : Cough up some cash. We’re talkin’ annual lump-sum payments into a big ol’ fund that would benefit struggling news outlets. Think of it as a thank you note, but with a whole lotta zeros.
• Option : Kiss and make up (or at least try to). This means sitting down with news publishers and hammering out a revenue-sharing agreement through mediation or arbitration. You know, actually being adults about it.

The woman leading this charge? None other than Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland). She’s like the superhero’s wise mentor in this story, pointing out the very real problem: the news industry is shrinking faster than your attention span on a TikTok scroll, and it’s not just a coincidence that this is happening at the same time that tech platforms are using news content without giving much (or anything) in return.

Friends and Foes: Who’s Team Journalism and Who’s Throwing Shade?

As with any good showdown, we’ve got some clear sides forming. In this corner, wearing the “Support Local Journalism” t-shirts, we have:

• News publishers, both big and small, who are tired of being the underdog in this digital wrestling match
• Organizations like the California Broadcasters Association and the California News Publishers Association, who know that a thriving news ecosystem is essential for, you know, a functioning democracy and stuff

Their argument is pretty straightforward: journalism costs money, folks. Reporters gotta eat, printing presses ain’t free, and investigative journalism doesn’t just magically appear out of thin air (though that would be cool). They argue that this bill is crucial for preserving quality journalism and fighting the good fight against misinformation, which, let’s be real, is spreading faster than a bad rumor in a high school cafeteria these days.

And in the opposite corner, wearing the “We Like Our Profits More Than We Like Facts” uniforms (just kidding… kinda), we have:

• Our friends Google and Facebook, naturally. Because why share the wealth when you can hoard it all for yourself, right?
• Some unexpected guests: the ACLU of California, the California Taxpayers Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and even some online news organizations (looking at you, CalMatters).

Google’s argument is basically, “Wait a minute, you’re welcome!” They claim that Google Search actually does a solid for news websites by driving traffic their way. It’s like that friend who takes credit for introducing you to your significant other, even though you totally met on Tinder.

Then there’s Jeff Jarvis, a retired journalism professor (who apparently didn’t retire from having opinions), calling the bill unconstitutional and a “tax on reading.” He also argues that it mostly benefits those big media conglomerates, which, okay, fair point.

Oh, and we can’t forget the Chamber of Progress, a tech industry group, waving their hands and pointing at Canada like it’s the boogeyman. They’re all, “See, this is what happens! Meta banned news in Canada, and look how terribly that turned out for publishers, especially the little guys.”

Tech Giants Throw Shade (and Threats): Will They Really Bail on California News?

Okay, so here’s where things get really interesting (and by interesting, we mean kinda scary). Meta, those social media masterminds over at Facebook and Instagram, have basically said, “Hold my beer,” and threatened to straight-up remove news from their platforms in California if this bill becomes law.

Their argument? They claim news content doesn’t actually bring in the big bucks for them. Which, okay, might be true from a purely financial standpoint, but it ignores the whole “informing the public” thing that news is supposed to do. It’s like saying libraries are useless because they don’t generate a profit—sure, maybe not in dollars, but in knowledge and informed citizens, which, last time we checked, are pretty darn valuable.

Google, on the other hand, started off singing a similar tune up in Canada, threatening to pull the plug on news there too. But then they did a bit of a 180 and agreed to pay publishers a cool $73 million annually. Which begs the question: if they can afford to pay Canadian publishers, why not show some love to the Golden State?

Well, here’s the kicker: research suggests Google rakes in a whopping $21 billion every year from news-related searches. And Meta? They’re pocketing a cool $4 billion from news on those US Facebook feeds we all love to scroll through. So yeah, maybe news isn’t their biggest money-maker, but it’s definitely contributing to those Silicon Valley yachts and private jets.

Show Me the Money: Why Fair Compensation Matters (and How It Could Save Local News)

Supporters of AB aren’t just whining about fairness for the heck of it (although, let’s be real, a little fairness would be nice). They argue that these platforms are basically exploiting publishers, who rely on search results and news feeds to reach their audiences. It’s like setting up shop in a busy marketplace but refusing to pay rent because, hey, you’re bringing in foot traffic, right?

Matt Pearce, a journalist with the Media Guild of the West, lays it out there: this isn’t just about big media companies; it’s about the little guys, the local news outlets—those scrappy reporters covering city council meetings and high school sports. They’re the ones who are really feeling the pain, and their disappearance would leave a gaping hole in our communities.

“Local news is the canary in the coal mine,” Pearce says. “When local news goes away, so does accountability, transparency, and civic engagement.”

Martha Diaz Aszkenazy, publisher of the San Fernando Valley Sun, echoes that sentiment. She sees AB as a lifeline for local publishers like herself, who are struggling to keep the lights on while tech giants are throwing lavish parties with their billions.

“We’re not asking for a handout,” Aszkenazy says. “We’re asking for fair compensation for the work we do, the work that informs our communities and strengthens our democracy.”

The Road Ahead: Will AB Make It to the Governor’s Desk (and Will He Actually Sign It)?

So, AB has cleared its first hurdle, but it’s still got a long way to go before it becomes the law of the land (or at least the law of California). It now heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee, where those budget hawks will scrutinize it with fine-toothed combs.

If it survives that gauntlet, it’ll face a full Senate vote, then back to the Assembly for a concurrence vote (because, you know, revisions). And then, the moment of truth: it lands on Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk.

Will he sign it? That, my friends, is the million-dollar question (or, considering the potential revenue at stake, maybe the billion-dollar question). Newsom hasn’t tipped his hand yet, so everyone’s left wondering: will he side with the tech giants who basically built Silicon Valley, or will he champion the little guy, the struggling journalist trying to keep the presses running and the truth flowing?

Stay tuned, folks. This story is far from over.