Tuning Out Transparency

Broadcasters vs Big Tech, With No Clear Winner in Sight

Introduction

I have been seeing an ad on morning news programs that delivers a dramatic message: Big Tech is threatening local journalism. It frames platforms like Google and Facebook as digital giants taking ad dollars while local newsrooms fight to survive. Local broadcasters, the ad argues, are doing the hard work of informing communities, while tech companies profit off their content without contributing much back.

At first glance, I assumed this campaign was connected to the ongoing push for the FCC to reclassify streaming platforms like YouTube TV. Broadcasters have long argued that services like these operate much like traditional cable providers and should follow similar rules, such as carrying local stations and paying retransmission fees. That battle has been active for years, so it seemed like a natural fit.

But as I looked into it further, I realized this campaign is focused on something else entirely. It is not about streaming rights or channel access. It is about how news content spreads online, who controls that visibility, and who gets paid. The National Association of Broadcasters is advocating for legislation that would allow local outlets to collectively bargain with tech giants. The concern is that Facebook and Google earn billions by distributing news without fairly compensating the creators and without giving them influence over how that content is surfaced.

If there was a clear call to action, other than a vague "call your representatives" message, I did not understand it. Call them and say what, exactly? A revision of this commercial has recently appeared that adds some interactivity, so the message may be evolving, but the original left too many blanks for viewers to fill in on their own.

Do you enjoy this type of discussion on broadcast and big tech?
Please consider tipping sonnik with a cup of coffee.

The Complicated Truth About Local Media and Big Tech

I have always believed in the value of local media. There is something important about having people who live in your area report on what actually affects it. Whether it is a city council decision, a neighborhood event, or a high school football game, these stories matter. National outlets can’t offer this level of resolution, and without local journalism, these stories often go unnoticed.

Still, I have seen the quality slip. As local station groups consolidated, programming started to feel recycled. Newscasts that once had distinct voices now share scripts, graphics, and anchors across multiple markets. There is less competition across the day, and in many places, fewer real reporters in the field. This is not limited to local news. It is happening on cable networks too. Ownership is chasing short-term results instead of building long-term trust with viewers. That is a business problem, not just specific to the media industry.

I also do not take every attack on tech companies at face value. When someone starts using the term "Big" to preface a business sector, many have learned to pause. It is often a signal that the entire industry is about to be slammed or wholly blamed for a complex issue. Some decisions made by these companies deserve criticism, but it is unfair to treat the individuals who build and support these platforms as villains. Most are just people doing their jobs in a system that rewards scale and automation.

Finally, there is a contradiction worth noting. Many of the same local broadcaster groups pushing these ads rely heavily on digital platforms to fund their operations. Their websites often follow the same layout, filled with syndicated content and loaded with programmatic ads. These stories get pushed out on social media, and the revenue comes from the same tech infrastructure they criticize. It is not a clean divide between tech and media. It is a tangled web, and everyone involved is trying to survive in it.

What the Fight Is Really About

At the center of this dispute is a question of value: who profits from news content, and who should? The journalism industry, particularly large broadcasting groups, argues that tech platforms are making billions by using headlines, snippets, and video content to keep users engaged, while giving little or nothing back to the original creators unless someone clicks through or watches a full video ad.

If you run your own site and use tools like Google AdSense, you receive a cut of the revenue based on ad impressions or clicks. Local broadcasters do the same on their websites and operate under the same terms. The same applies to YouTube. If a station uploads a video and enables monetization, they receive the same percentage split that independent creators do. On the surface, this appears to be a level playing field.

But that is not where the broadcasters stop. They are asking for something additional.

Their position is that tech platforms generate revenue simply by having ads near local news content on the screen. It’s difficult to understand all of the specific concerns from the NAB’s informational page; but I imagine they are referring to a scenario where a news post winds up in someone’s timeline where a paid/boosted post is also nearby in this timeline (but not directly associated with the news post itself). Ads may run near that content, or the platform may benefit from increased user engagement that keeps people on the site longer. In those cases, the broadcaster earns nothing. They are asking for a share of that indirect revenue because their content helped attract and retain users.

They also want the legal right to negotiate as a group. Right now, individual publishers, whether large or small, cannot demand better revenue terms from companies like Google or Meta. Broadcasters want legislation that gives them collective bargaining power. This would allow them to act together and negotiate improved rates, better placement, and fairer distribution of platform revenue.

In addition, they want more control over how algorithms treat their content. Broadcasters have seen sharp drops in traffic after sudden changes to news ranking on platforms like Facebook and YouTube. These updates are often unannounced and offer no feedback or recourse. The concern is that local news, which is typically less sensational and more informative, is being buried in favor of viral content or outrage-driven material. Broadcasters are pushing for more transparency and influence in how these systems work.

This is not only about revenue. It is also about power, visibility, and influence. The question is whether large media groups should receive special rights and higher payouts compared to independent creators, or whether the rules should apply equally to everyone.

What This Could Mean for Viewers

The direct impact on viewers is not clearly spelled out in any of these proposals, but based on history and the nature of digital platforms, we can make some informed guesses.

We have seen how disputes between broadcasters and cable companies play out. When local stations and providers fail to agree on carriage fees, stations get pulled from the lineup. Eventually, the two sides come to an agreement, and costs go up. Local broadcast affiliates have been a significant part of cable bills, even for customers who never watch them. These negotiations rarely stay invisible to the customer for long. If tech platforms are now expected to pay similar fees or revenue shares, it is reasonable to assume those costs will land somewhere.

One possibility is that platforms like Google and Meta decide certain local content is no longer worth the added cost. They could reduce the presence of local news in search results, news feeds, or recommendation engines. That might avoid a direct payout, but it also creates a risk of public and regulatory backlash. If major platforms reduce access to timely, location-specific information, they open the door to claims of anti-competitive behavior or gatekeeping.

More likely, though, tech companies would look to recover the added cost elsewhere. On YouTube, this could mean more aggressive advertising, tighter limits on ad skipping, or a stronger push toward YouTube Premium subscriptions. Premium already removes ads and offers some perks, but if the base experience becomes more cluttered with commercial breaks, more people might feel nudged into paying. It could also mean an eventual price hike for Premium itself.

Other platforms might follow similar strategies. Facebook could reduce news visibility overall, as it has done in some countries. Google might continue pushing users toward summaries and AI-generated responses instead of linking to full articles. In both cases, users could see fewer original local stories and more aggregated or rewritten material.

Another possibility is that some local broadcasters will retreat further into walled gardens. If they feel they are not being fairly compensated for traffic from Google or Facebook, they may put more content behind registration walls or paid subscriptions. This already happens with some regional papers and television sites. For viewers, that could mean fewer free sources and more paywalls, even for local stories.

Conclusion

In traditional carriage disputes between local broadcasters and cable companies, viewers were usually caught in the middle and made well aware of it. You would see ad spots, on-screen crawls, or full statements from both sides. Each company made its case, and the viewer at least had a chance to hear the argument from both perspectives. That is not happening here. You are unlikely to see a campaign ad from Google or Meta offering a counterpoint. The local station groups have the airwaves to themselves, which gives them a major advantage in shaping public opinion.

It is understandable to want to support your local broadcaster. Local news plays a vital role, and the challenges facing journalism are real. But it is worth asking what this push for more platform revenue will actually accomplish. If broadcasters succeed in getting more money from tech companies, will it result in better reporting, expanded coverage, and stronger local journalism? Or will it simply show up as a line item in a quarterly earnings announcement?

The message may sound simple, but the long-term effects are not. Viewers should think critically about what is being asked, who benefits, and who might eventually pay the price.