{"id":8532,"date":"2025-10-01T19:02:24","date_gmt":"2025-10-01T23:02:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cntiwpedev.wpenginepowered.com\/?p=8532"},"modified":"2025-10-06T14:47:49","modified_gmt":"2025-10-06T18:47:49","slug":"building-news-economic-sustainability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cnti.org\/issue-primers\/building-news-economic-sustainability\/","title":{"rendered":"Building News Economic Sustainability"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

CNTI’s Summary<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Independent journalism is critical to functioning democracies. As the global news industry largely continues to face financial struggles, governments have responded with a range of policy initiatives to provide economic support to commercial, public and local news media. Among these, recent media bargaining legislation in Australia and Canada has become the starting point for policy debates in many parts of the world. These policy debates bring several challenges to light, including tensions between the news as a public good versus a market product, the role of public policy in compensating for market forces and the risk of increasing media dependence on, and undue influence from, governments and platforms. Policy aiming to support the economic sustainability of news media cannot be one-size-fits-all; it must be context-sensitive and protect media independence, free expression and an open internet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n\n\n
\n

The Issue<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

For decades, the commercial business model of bundled news with embedded advertising generated high profitability<\/a> for publishers. The internet gave rise to new structures for news consumption as well as new and more targeted ways for advertisers to reach people. As the digital landscape evolved and more of the public moved online, the traditional news business model became obsolete and the news industry plunged into financial crisis<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Simultaneously, the role of news publishers began to change, particularly when it came to distribution of news. While the advent of digital platforms (primarily social media and search engines) broadened news publishers\u2019 access to potential audiences, it also left publishers more dependent<\/a> on these intermediaries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amid these changes, the news industry has made efforts to develop new business models<\/a> such as building digital subscribers, donations, grants, membership events and other means of funding. While there have been some successes, the news industry has not been able to generate the levels of revenue it had previously enjoyed. Because news is critical to functioning democracies, governments and civil society have responded to economic challenges in the news industry with a range of policy initiatives aimed at providing financial support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When it comes to commercial news media, a range of proposals to provide financial support exist, but most notable are recent media bargaining legislation in Australia and Canada, which have inspired policy debates in many parts of the world. Earlier attempts to provide financial support for news were often based on copyright law, but these policies are based on competition (antitrust) law, requiring digital platforms to negotiate payment to news publishers on the grounds that platforms have financially benefited from digital advertising by providing links to publisher content without due compensation. Other efforts, such as in the U.S.<\/a>, aim to create exemptions to antitrust law to bring technology companies to the bargaining table. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In response to some of this legislation, technology companies such as Meta<\/a> and Google<\/a> have begun<\/a> to shift away<\/a> from news<\/a> altogether, calling the legislation unworkable<\/a> for a number of reasons, including concerns over their own financial liabilities. This shift away from news would almost certainly harm<\/a> publishers\u2019 (and particularly smaller<\/a> publishers\u2019) ability to reach audiences and inhibit the public\u2019s ability to access legitimate news sources and information. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are also ongoing policy debates surrounding what is perhaps the most substantial<\/a> form of direct government intervention in the news industry: support for public service<\/a> media. In many democracies, public media sit at the center of the news ecosystem, making them key players in debates around public policy aimed at enabling independent, competitive journalism. However, public media also continue to face many of the same threats as the commercial news industry, including challenges<\/a> with digital transitions, decades of budget cuts and, in some cases, political attacks<\/a>. As we address later in this primer, policy discussions surrounding public versus commercial news media support are often siloed or considered at odds with one another (despite little to no evidence<\/a> to date supporting the theory that public media support \u2018crowds out\u2019 or shrinks commercial news audiences). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Attempts to regulate economic support for the news industry introduce difficult but critical questions about the balance between news as a public good versus a market product, the role of public or <\/strong>local<\/strong><\/a> media and freelance journalists in the news ecosystem, the tension between content neutrality and curbing mis- and disinformation, the challenge of making complex and proprietary platform infrastructures publicly governable and accountable, the potential implications of government involvement in news media revenue structures and the role of public policy in compensating for market forces (versus changing them) in the <\/strong>public interest<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is critical to address the economic sustainability of the news industry, which includes promoting a pluralistic<\/a>, diverse<\/a> and innovative media ecosystem, local<\/a> and public news, and broader public access<\/a> to news. However, these multistakeholder conversations must be guided by evidence-based practices that reflect strengths and weaknesses of policy-driven news support, with an eye toward media independence, plurality and transparency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n\n\n
\n

What Makes It Complex<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

These debates raise the broader question of whether, or to what extent, governments can<\/em> and should<\/em> save independent journalism from financial crisis.<\/strong> Democratic governments are obligated to protect fundamental rights, including the basic freedom to access and share information. However, protecting free expression alone is not enough<\/a> to sustain the news media. Strong legal protections of the press in countries like South Africa<\/a> and the U.S. have not protected their news industries from financial struggles. Policymakers can help to enable an environment supportive of an independent, competitive press \u2013 if<\/em> they are willing to commit resources to these efforts, prioritize strong governance and protect editorial independence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legislation must be sensitive to a country\u2019s <\/strong>context<\/strong><\/a> and media environment, which makes replicable or one-size-fits-all approaches ineffective.<\/strong> While early efforts to address the economic sustainability of news media can help inform approaches in other parts of the world, there are also lessons to be learned beyond these narrow (i.e., largely Global North) contexts. Approaches<\/a> to developing domestic policy must consider the specific country\u2019s media environment and history. For example, histories of governmental press control or low levels of institutional trust may influence some countries\u2019 approaches to or perceptions of government involvement in funding<\/a> or supporting news media. Other challenges, particularly for emerging democracies, may include less instructive experience, limited support and resources, weakened civil society, and government control of media associations or press councils that would shepherd such changes or existing legal structures (e.g., laws preventing tax revenue from going toward news media).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Holistic solutions for media sustainability may not be possible, or even preferred, but piecemeal responses may make it more difficult to create lasting solutions or to measure success.<\/strong> For instance, despite evidence<\/a> that countries with well-funded, independent public media consistently have stronger democratic outcomes, public media (as well as local media) are often dealt with in separate policy initiatives from commercial news media. Public service media are, in theory, meant to serve the whole public, meaning that \u2013 when truly independent \u2013 they can play a key role in providing free public access to information and making attempts to combat disinformation. Countries that address commercial media sustainability but do not address public<\/a> or local media sustainability risk perpetuating existing inequalities in news access and diversity and continuing to serve audiences who are already better-served.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If a primary concern driving legislation is to address news publishers\u2019 increased dependence on digital platforms, it is especially critical to ensure that legislation does not inadvertently create more<\/em><\/strong> dependence<\/strong><\/a> on, provide more<\/em> power to or constrain scrutiny of these companies.<\/strong> Legislative policy that puts platforms in charge of negotiating with news organizations risks decisions made based on commercial interests. Further, if news publishers rely financially on payments from major technology companies, it would be reasonable to worry that publishers may not scrutinize these companies through news coverage as much as they would absent their financial relationships. There is also a question of how sustainable<\/a> some policies may be if they create financial dependence on digital platforms that may or may not last, as digital habits and interests shift, both among the public and among platform companies who may simply choose to shift away<\/a> from news content at any time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is important that these policy decisions do not <\/strong>jeopardize<\/strong><\/a> media independence or introduce new opportunities for undue political influence on publishers.<\/strong> Legislation that puts governments in charge of determining who qualifies as a news organization and how news revenue is structured risks politically motivated decisions and loss of journalistic independence. These risks must be considered even in countries where the current government supports an independent news media, as ruling parties can \u2013 and indeed do \u2013 change, such as in Nicaragua<\/a> and Serbia<\/a>. Policymakers must consider the risks of media capture<\/a>, including how to prevent political influence from determining which publishers succeed in the media market as well as how to ensure media plurality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is unclear to what degree certain policies will actually bolster news reporting or support news innovation and a diverse, competitive news environment.<\/strong> Current policy approaches largely benefit<\/a> legacy and large news publishers at the expense<\/a> of smaller<\/a> independent or local ones. The policies often lack full transparency, equal collective bargaining rights for smaller or independent publishers and other mechanisms that would ensure diverse distribution of funding. While policymakers in some countries<\/a> have attempted to resolve these issues by allowing for collective bargaining, these policies usually leave smaller or independent publishers and freelancers unequally served. These smaller, typically digital-first startups are often paving the way for news innovation, thus, policies that are destructive to these smaller independent publishers suppress the emergence of new business models which are essential to the success of the news industry as a whole. Further, even among those who agree that technology companies should<\/em> pay for facilitating access to news on their platforms, there remains a lack of consensus over how or where that money should be spent by publishers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Content-neutral funding initiatives can undermine efforts to curb mis- and disinformation.<\/strong> Some media bargaining codes risk funding purveyors of disinformation<\/a> due to a) efforts to maintain neutrality in who qualifies for funding, and b) using publisher reach or traffic as a key criteria for bargaining structures. This challenge is exacerbated by the difficulty of defining or measuring news \u201cquality\u201d (see more discussion of this in a separate issue primer)<\/a>. It is critical that considerations of content neutrality in policy-driven economic support for news weigh the opportunities of promoting a diverse media environment against the threats of potentially incentivizing or directly funding disinformation or clickbait.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n\n\n
\n

State of Research<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

As CNTI notes in other issue primers<\/a>, a breadth of research in recent years has emphasized both the global news industry\u2019s continued struggle with the transition to a digital and mobile media environment and publishers\u2019 evolving relationship<\/a> with, and dependency<\/a> on, platform companies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One segment of this research is specifically concentrated around policy-driven economic support for news. Much of this recent work centers on three key areas:<\/p>\n\n\n\n