Does your blog or not-for-profit count as news? Nope

There has been no small amount of shouting over Facebook’s decision to block news from Australia. This is in part because they did not just block news, they blocked not-for-profits, government websites, academic blogs, and unions. They did this by claiming the definition of “core news” is too broad.

I am not going to get into the argument about whether the legislation should pass or not here but rather look at the actions taken by Facebook and whether their choice to block these pages reflects the legislation. Most of us (including myself) are not legislative scholars so it can be easy to read one small section and assume AH HA! everything we do counts as core-news! This is Facebook’s interpretation but let’s be honest they aren’t exactly the beacon of trustworthy information.

Instead let’s have a look at the sections in the Explanatory Memorandum that cover the not-news work that Facebook is calling news.

Firstly are you a news business corporation? According to the Explanatory memorandum you have to fulfil the following.

1.13 For a news business corporation to participate, it must be registered by the ACMA. The ACMA must register a news business (and the applicant corporation as the registered news business corporation) if the applicant had an annual revenue above $150,000 in the most recent year or in three of the five most recent years, and the news sources comprising the news business:

• have the primary purpose of creating and publishing core news content;
• are subject to relevant professional journalistic standards; and
• operate predominantly in Australia for the dominant purpose of serving Australian audiences.

Now a lot of bloggers probably see themselves as journalists but in truth you really aren’t (and yes I am aware of the irony here).

Secondly what counts as “news content” or “core news”?

1.73 Pure opinion or commentary on news content will generally not be considered core news. Applicant corporations seeking to include opinion based or editorial content will need to demonstrate how the content plays a significant role in reporting, investigating or explaining issues that are relevant in engaging Australians in public debate and in informing democratic decision making.

So no unless you are applying to have your op-ed be included in your news business corporation then your blog is not “core news”. Neither are the postings from a union, lobby group, or women’s shelter.

Thirdly are you a news source? I mean many organisations produce original contents, reports, and commentary that will be considered news. Well probably not unless you work for a news organisation.

1.79 A news source is subject to a professional standard for the purposes of the Code if:

• it is subject to the rules of the Australian Press Council Standards of Practice or the Independent Media Council Code of Conduct; News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code

• it is subject to the rules of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice, the Commercial Radio Code of Practice or the Subscription Broadcast Television Codes of Practice;

• it is subject to the rules of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or Special Broadcasting Service codes of practice;

• it has internal editorial standards that are analogous to the above mentioned rules regarding internal editorial standards relating to the provision of quality journalism;

• it is subject to rules specified in the regulations that replace the above rules; or

• it is subject to other rules specified in the regulations.

1.80 A news source has editorial independence from the subject of its news coverage if it is:

• not owned or controlled by a political or advocacy organisation (such as a political party, lobby group or a union); and

• not owned or controlled by a party that has a commercial interest in the coverage being produced (for example, a publication that covers a sport that is owned or controlled by the sport’s governing body).

This section even comes with an example.
Example 1.4 Application of ‘professional standards test’ to advocacy organisation Caterers First is a lobby group in Australia that advocates for catering industry policies and raises money for catering industry events and causes. Caterers First employs a small team of journalists to produce Caterers First News — a news website and daily email newsletter which reports on topical Australian catering news and events. Caterers First News has robust internal editorial guidelines and processes to ensure it operates at arm’s length from the lobbying side of the business. Despite these internal measures, Caterers First News is unlikely to be eligible under the professional standards test. This is because the news source is controlled by an advocacy organisation and reports exclusively on the subject related to their advocacy work, raising legitimate concerns about its editorial independence.

Now the definition of news is a little vague I won’t lie but relying on the definitions at the start of a piece of legislation is a great way to look like a fool.

The Legislation

Of course the legislation is the truly important document and while I am no expert I have spent some time reading it. So let’s have a quick gander at what is takes to be considered a news business according to the legislation.

For a news business to be registered (and be covered by the act) it needs to fulfil ALL 3 tests. The Content Test 52N(1), The Australian Audience Test 52O(1), and The Professionals Standards Test 52P(1). I wont repeat these tests as they are outlined above.

The take home being unless you are subject to standards like the broadcasting standards, the press council or similar then I’m sorry you are not a producer of News.

What does this mean for Facebook

It means the actions taken by Facebook does NOT align with the legislation in question. If they followed the legislation they would have just blocked news as Google did with their search engines earlier this year. Instead they opted for a broad interpretation of news that ignored the rest of the legislation. They did it to rile people up to pressure the government to drop the code.

But surely Facebook wouldn’t peddle fake news to protect their profits right?