House Judiciary Eyes Journalism Markup, as Senate Judiciary Moves Ahead
The House Judiciary Committee is moving forward with plans to mark up the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, a source familiar with discussions told us Friday. That could mean potential movement in both chambers as the Senate Judiciary Committee eyes the first week of September for marking up S-673, after holding the bill last week (see 2208020063).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Sponsors have repeatedly cited more than $120 million Big Tech has spent on opposition ads. The JCPA would allow news publishers to negotiate revenue sharing with online platforms through an antitrust exemption. Some legislators have concerns the bill would enable big media cartels. The current Senate version would exclude large media companies in favor of local news organizations negotiating. “If that is done, it will probably help the chances of passage,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., lead Republican sponsor, told us Thursday. Senate Antitrust Subcommittee Chair Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., leads five Democratic sponsors on S-673. Six Republicans have signed on. The House companion, HR-1735, has 44 Democratic sponsors and 20 Republicans. Offices for House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and sponsors David Cicilline, D-R.I., and Ken Buck, R-Colo., didn’t comment.
“I generally support” the bill, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told us Thursday. “I’m anxious to look at it again.” Senate Consumer Protection Subcommittee Chairman Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told us Thursday: “I’m pretty sure I’m in favor of it, but I have to confirm.” Both are yet to formally endorse. “It’s been rewritten since the original version, but I’m very sympathetic to it,” Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told us Thursday. “I’m not going to say I’m going to vote for it yet, but I’m very sympathetic to it.”
The antitrust exemption “makes me a little nervous,” Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told us: “I’m kind of a pro-antitrust guy.” The “argument” is that it would help local journalism, “but I need to take a closer look at it. I’ve got some concerns just because it seems like a pretty big carveout.” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a co-sponsor, spoke in support Thursday: “Yeah, I like it. Keep ya’ll paid.”
“I have concerns obviously about the strangulation of local news, but I” haven’t closely reviewed the legislation, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., told us. Sponsor Bill Cassidy, R-La., said he believes the Republican support is there. Big Tech is “borrowing” content without “paying anything,” he said: Strengthening media revenue streams could help increase the quality of journalism, he argued. Right now, business models are driven by subscriptions and an incentive to politically “agitate” readers, he said.
NAB and the News Media Alliance support the bill. Tech industry groups and various consumer advocates -- including Public Knowledge, Common Cause, Fight for the Future, Free Press and the Wikimedia Foundation -- oppose the measure as introduced.
Based on prior versions of the bill, those negotiating on behalf of media could still include large corporations that own multiple outlets, said Common Cause Media and Democracy Program Director Yosef Getachew. The bill lacks a requirement for the added revenue to be invested in newsrooms, reporting positions and journalism work , rather than corporate buy-backs and the salaries of corporate executives, said Getachew. Even if companies like The New York Times aren't involved, “that’s just the inherent nature of a structure like this,” he said. “It has more potential to help corporate folks, as opposed to actual local journalism and reporting.”
Like Hawley, NetChoice Vice President Carl Szabo noted the potential of an antitrust exemption empowering the largest companies to collude and decide what’s legitimate news. “Laws making newspapers dependent on the good will of the government will further undermine the independence, integrity, and trust of journalists in the eyes of the public,” Szabo said Friday. “Making billion-dollar newsrooms more rich and powerful won’t save local news. Instead, JCPA gives the centuries’ old monoliths more power to dictate what ‘real journalism’ is.”
“We’re very grateful to our lead sponsors for moving this critical bill,” said News Media Alliance CEO David Chavern in a statement Friday, citing continued news about journalism industry layoffs. “Local news is in crisis, so the time is now.” The bill “levels the playing field” between local media and tech industry gatekeepers who “leverage their market power to devalue our trusted news and community-focused content,” said NAB CEO Curtis LeGeyt: NAB “applauds the Senate Judiciary Committee for scheduling a markup of this important, bipartisan legislation and we thank Senators Klobuchar and Kennedy, Chairman Durbin and the bill’s sponsors for their leadership. Broadcasters will continue to work with policymakers to advance this critical legislation.”
A potential exclusion of larger media outlets doesn’t make Free Press “any less concerned,” said General Counsel Matt Wood Friday. It will be difficult to quantify any market-based transaction that could help calculate the value of these platforms carrying news content, particularly for smaller publishers, he said: “People go to Facebook, Twitter” and other platforms regardless of what they carry. “If this is really a way to take a little bit of money out of Mark Zuckerberg’s pocket, that’s not anything I’m going to weep over,” he said. “But if it then just goes into” the pockets of other shareholders and major conglomerates, “that seems less obviously a benefit.”