Over the past six years, we’ve shared in this space many instances of threats and crises to our existence as a credible, independent, hyper-local news and information business. Our readers and stakeholders in the community have always responded, too. We exist still today, in large measure, thanks to your generosity and well-documented commitment to reading us in print and online.
In the spirit of transparency, it’s important I update you on two specific pieces of legislation in Salem that threaten your right to know and the survival of businesses like mine.
Senate Bill 437: Legal Notices
This bill was introduced by Sen. Dick Anderso, and would alter and/or remove guardrails for credible publishing and archiving of Legal Notices. It would make them more difficult to find, with no certainty of archiving them – a critical component for the legal documents that have “life” for many years.
Why was this bill proposed? Self-interest. A digital-only publisher doesn’t want to meet the appropriately rigorous standards to have the right to publish legal notices. Do you have a computer in your basement and a basic understanding of artificial intelligence software? Then you, too, can publish critically important legal notices on your “newspaper website.”
See the problem? What kind of traffic does your website get? Unique and return visitors? Time spent viewing? None of that key performance data is required. There already is a path for online-only outlets to publish legal notices, so why try to rewrite the law – and put nearly 20 local newspapers out of business?
Senate Bill 686: Oregon Journalism Protection Act
This bill is sponsored by Sen. Khanh Pham. Modeled on similar agreements in New Jersey, California, Canada, and Australia – and being considered in numerous other states – it would hold Big Tech accountable for the theft of content over recent decades. Google’s search generates nearly $100 billion annually, and more than 70% of search results are news and information items. This bill creates an avenue for newspapers to recover money for content they created.
Google, of course, has threatened to throttle Oregon news websites in retaliation by basically hiding the content and making it less discoverable online. Who has the most to lose there? Digital-only businesses.
The other side’s arguments against this bill are specious at best, if not outright disingenuous, and collectively boil down to self-interest.
And, I suppose, ultimately, that’s my perspective on these bills, too. The difference is that my stance doesn’t contribute to further killing off local news. I submitted testimony on both bills – opposing SB437 and supporting SB686 – because those actions support local news coverage in small and rural communities across Oregon.
Is it any wonder that people with digital-only businesses don’t want Google or Big Tech to pay damages to small newspapers? Of course not. That’s what you would expect, right? It’s in their self-interest to be the exclusive recipients of money from Big Tech companies.
I recall working as a young sports editor at The Gainesville Sun in Florida in 1995. The executive editor called me into his office one afternoon. A bit sheepishly, he requested coverage of an event in which the publisher was participating. My editor smiled patiently as I ticked through the reasons not to do it – lack of resources, not newsworthy, staffing. When I finished, he calmly said, “Son, consider it enlightened self-interest.”
So, I have no hard feelings for people who look out only for themselves – just don’t do it under the guise of some greater good. Suggesting we oppose the Google bill because we should work for more-perfect legislation is simply hoping while letting “perfect” rob you of “great.”
Let’s take the win. Reimbursement from the tech oligarchs will preserve your right to know.
Monday afternoon, the Senate Rules Committee voted to move SB686 to a full Senate vote, probably next week. Please let your local legislators know they can secure the future of local news.
Noel Nash is the publisher of The Chronicle and is on the ONPA board of directors.
