The California Democrat who brokered a deal with Google to fund local newsrooms has defended the controversial partnership – arguing that it was the best they could deliver in hard-knuckle talks with the powerful search giant.
Assemblymember Buffy Wicks led negotiations on the nearly $250 million truce, which critics say enables Google and other Big Tech firms to escape comprehensive legislation that could have forced them to share advertising revenue with cash-strapped newsrooms.
Some laid the blame on California Gov. Gavin Newsom – who has veto authority over state bills – for being too cozy with Silicon Valley.
Wicks said that legislation aimed at forcing Big Tech to pay its fair share faced unspecified “serious challenges” in California’s state legislature – and argued the Google deal was “about the art of the possible.”
“Ultimately, the decision was: Do we want nothing, or something?” Wicks said in an interview with the Sacramento Bee. “From my perspective, a nearly quarter-billion-dollar framework was better than zero.”
Wicks herself had introduced that proposal, called the California Journalism Preservation Act. Wicks and her allies have billed the deal as a “first-in-the-nation partnership” that will help to stem ongoing job losses and boost newsrooms for years to come.
Meanwhile, a prominent journalists’ union has blasted as a “disastrous” backroom deal.
Critics are wary of key elements, including its direction of funds toward a vague “AI accelerator” project — at a time when many journalists fear the technology will cause more job losses — and the fact that more than a quarter of the overall money will come from taxpayers.
Of the total, $180 million will be placed with a nonprofit for the benefit of California newsrooms, with $110 million coming from Google and $70 million from taxpayers, Wicks’ office told the Bee.
The remaining $62.5 million will come from tech firms and fund the AI accelerator project.
Critics remain unconvinced that the deal was the best available outcome.
Media Guild of the West President Matt Pearce, a former Los Angeles Times reporter who previously called the partnership a “shakedown,” aimed his ire at Google.
“This whole settlement is a massive get out of jail free card for a monopoly with an illegal business model,” Pearce told the Bee.
Google, which earns more than $300 billion per year in digital advertising revenue, was recently determined in federal court to have an illegal monopoly over the online search market.
Pearce reportedly added that the union was kept at arm’s length during negotiations and that the $250 million figure is much less than what the tech industry would have owed if an ad revenue share was implemented by law.
“You cannot save an industry with a policy proposal that the workers in that industry are adamantly opposed to,” added Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the California Labor Federation.
Gonzalez argued Newsom is too “enamored” with Big Tech and bears some of the responsibility.
“I think that the governor has always loved technology and innovation and Silicon Valley, and I think that, yes, I do think he’s siding with all of those factors over rank-and-file workers,” Gonzalez said.
Some insiders had raised concerns that Newsom would veto legislation even it was passed in the legislature.
Newsom’s office referred to the governor’s statement on the deal, which he called “a major breakthrough in ensuring the survival of newsrooms and bolstering local journalism across California.”
“The deal not only provides funding to support hundreds of new journalists but helps rebuild a robust and dynamic California press corps for years to come, reinforcing the vital role of journalism in our democracy,” Newsom said.
The announcement notably made no reference to any involvement for Meta, which threatened last year to remove news articles for California’s Facebook and Instagram users if legislation was passed.
Meta declined to comment.
