MAKHUDU SEFARA | Use Google’s crumbs to save SA media

It was meant to be a moment of atonement. But the desire to avoid cataclysmic court challenges has left the media with a watered-down deal — a compromise unlikely to save the sector.

Will it help? Absolutely. Is it a panacea? Absolutely not. The remedial actions in the final report of the “Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry” say Google will put aside R71m a year for Google News Showcase, plus R45m over three years for AI innovation funding, and an additional R11.6m for digital transformation.

On paper, it reads like a commendable effort, until you consider the number of mainstream media houses in South Africa — and how these amounts fade into insignificance against the tech giant’s revenues.

To ensure that mainstream media sign on the dotted line without too much protest at the pittance, a lock-in clause is on the table. “Mainstream Publishers that accept these offers before the product (Google News Showcase) is launched will be paid 25% of their monthly contract value in the interim.”

This is not an opt-in provision; it’s corporate manipulation of weakened competitors. It would also be naïve not to expect Google’s extractive instincts to kick in. Knowing how distressed most media houses are, this carrot will facilitate quicker though flawed agreements.

That said, it doesn’t mean the opposite is ideal. One of the most dreaded things about these negotiations was how long a protracted court case against Google would last. Now the lure of the 25% is unmissable.

For small community players set to benefit from the Digital News Transformation Fund (DNTF), Google has put R38m on the table for the first three years of a five-year agreement. In the final two years, it will “match the contributions of other platforms, business, government and leading publishers” — but this will be capped at R19m.

All of this is to be accompanied by artificial intelligence training and “core web vitals” support, to help the South African media compete with the tech giants. Well, if you believe that, you’ll believe anything.

Of course, South African media must pick it up from here and fight the fight of its life. But the sheer imbalance — the asymmetry of capability, even when training is offered — makes nonsense of the offer.

The truth is that search and social media lay the groundwork for redirecting digital advertising away from the mainstream. With the rise of AI, Big Tech is ensuring search queries are now answered on their platforms and traffic is not redirected back to news sites. This is how the knife in the back is turned — and then twisted.

The truth is that search and social media lay the groundwork for redirecting digital advertising away from the mainstream. With the rise of AI, Big Tech is ensuring search queries are now answered on their platforms and traffic is not redirected back to news sites. This is how the knife in the back is turned — and then twisted.

If the strategy is to keep traffic away from news sites, why would a company train anyone to compromise its own strategy? It would become a zero-sum game for Google, which faces threats from OpenAI itself. It would be foolhardy to expect it to negotiate and gleefully agree to a deal that leads to its own demise.

All of these measures apply to media houses that fall under the Press Council, which oversees newspapers and digital platforms; and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa, which regulates radio and television.

The report also deals with content regulation on social media, including podcasts, which have become cesspools of misinformation and hateful, sexist and racist commentary.

While Google sought negotiation, the much reviled Elon Musk’s X simply blue-ticked the commission and has been given a few days to object to the findings. Alongside Meta, X deprioritises posts with news links in a naked and unbalanced battle for audiences and advertising.

X also imposes “limited on-platform monetisation options”, which means they (Big Tech) allow the media to come play on their platforms as long as they are the only ones who can make money. You may ask how that’s fair — but, hey, they aren’t even pretending to be.

Worse is that these social media giants have dispensed with third-party fact-checking programs on their platforms, with Mark Zuckerberg invoking “free expression”, pretending to be worried about “too many mistakes and too much censorship”.

Call it what it is — capitulation to Donald Trump, who started his Truth Social because he felt entitled to his “alternative facts”. Fact-checking got in the way. The result is a storm of misinformation that harms even credible media houses.

The damage Big Tech has caused over many years has caused much pain and anguish, and its effects will remain with us for many years — the current offer notwithstanding.

The Competition Commission arrived at its conclusions with an eye on avoiding litigation. The result is that Google dodges a real bullet — while still, also, saving some jobs in some newsrooms.

While the Competition Commission deal is imperfect, it’s an opportunity for local media houses to use it to build both capacity and capability, and embrace innovation and ambidexterity. Chasing the bottom line — however crucial — without embracing organisational learning is self-defeating.

But one achievement we should all celebrate is that any media house that benefits from this will need to be part of the Press Council or the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa. That is a victory for our media — and for our democracy.

In the end, the funds Google has put on the table — far better than what their notorious cousins at X have offered — are woefully insufficient to save the sector. We can also be sure they weren’t going to try to save the sector. It’s counterintuitive. But the sector must use the crumbs to save itself.