logo
California's revamped Google journalism deal raises new questions

California's revamped Google journalism deal raises new questions

Yahoo22-05-2025
SAN FRANCISCO — California's bold experiment to make Big Tech pay for local journalism just hit a double-speed bump.
Last week, Gov. Gavin Newsom dialed back state support for a first-in-the-nation newsroom fund in the face of a $12 billion state deficit. Then on Wednesday, Google — the lone corporate backer of the initiative — decided to lower its own tab by a third, from $15 million to $10 million for this year.
The handshake deal to support local journalism with both state and Google funds emerged from negotiations with Sacramento lawmakers last summer, who had initially proposed legislation to force tech giants to compensate online publishers as they're required to in countries like Canada.
The deal was hailed as a landmark arrangement that could set a precedent for other states seeking to prop up struggling newsrooms decimated by lost advertising revenues as readers turn to aggregation sites such as Google News. Those concerns have been particularly acute in California, where outlets like the Los Angeles Times, the state's largest newspaper, have seen mass layoffs in recent years.
Google did leave the door open to match up to $5 million more if other private, public or philanthropic donors step up. None did on Wednesday. But the latest changes to the deal are drawing vocal criticism, both old and new, while also raising questions about what it means for the future of the initiative.
Here's a rundown of the lingering unknowns as California reworks its Google news deal.
A version of this story first appeared in California Decoded, POLITICO's morning newsletter for Pros about how the Golden State is shaping tech policy within its borders and beyond. Like this content? POLITICO Pro subscribers receive it daily. Learn more at www.politicopro.com.
That's the new name for the initiative, previously known as the 'Newsroom Transformation Fund.' The rebrand came out of discussions with stakeholders and the state library as the new public partner, a spokesperson for Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, a Bay Area Democrat who announced the details and led negotiations for the fund, told POLITICO.
California Press Forward, California Black Media and a journalism professor joined the press release with statements of support. Several skeptics of the deal turned even more doubtful.
'Google got almost everything they wanted,' bemoaned former state Sen. Steve Glazer, who had authored a shot-down bill that sought to sustain newsrooms by taxing digital ad revenue. 'One, they wanted their amount to be at a modest level. Two, they wanted a state match so they could avoid setting a precedent that other states could follow.'
Glazer added that the downsizing of the program would force newsrooms to 'fight over crumbs,' without making a dent in reversing the journalism industry's decline. He downgraded his assessment of the initiative from a '2 percent' solution last year to a '1 percent solution.'
Rebuild Local News President Steven Waldman similarly said that while he appreciates that efforts to help local news are moving forward, 'the plan is more than 50 percent smaller than the already-too-small program.'
California Broadcasters Association President Steve Stuck, whose members are not part of the deal, told POLITICO: 'It was disappointing, I think, to everybody. When Newsom released a budget and they saw it went from 30 to 10, you know it's going in the wrong direction.'
Other media groups that had been more supportive have since gone quiet. The California News Publishers Association, which issued a statement of support to Wicks' summer announcement and will have two seats on the fund's advisory board, did not respond to a request for comment.
In another twist, the California State Library is officially hosting the fund after UC Berkeley's journalism school walked away from the responsibility late last year over concerns about how the money would be distributed.
One area of hesitation from critics was oversight over and independence in allocating the millions. Under the revised agreement, an advisory board will help the state librarian create programs supported by the fund and offer direction on how they should be spent.
However, the state library still gets the final say. The board will expand from seven to nine members, adding two seats reserved for State Library appointees alongside news publishers, members of journalism ethics groups and journalists' unions.
'Whenever we encounter proposals to provide grants to news organizations from the executive branch of government, we want to ensure that it's done in a way that doesn't inadvertently undermine editorial independence,' said Waldman, who considered the issue 'fixable.'
Wicks' plan is to release a fuller proposal in a budget trailer bill in the coming days. State lawmakers will consider the bill as leaders work with Newsom's office to iron out a final state budget over the next few weeks.
Waldman urged lawmakers to reject Newsom's proposed $20 million cut to the fund, while Glazer said he would prefer a separate bill outside the budget process.
'It's actually a significant policy matter, and that should typically be the contents of a legislative bill that goes through the hearing process in both houses,' the former state senator argued.
In addition to the fund, last summer's agreement included plans to invest $12.5 million more per year of Google's funding into researching and developing AI tools as part of an accelerator program.
The program drew backlash, as news organizations feared the technology could replace reporters' jobs. Though Wednesday's announcement didn't mention the accelerator, a Google spokesperson confirmed to POLITICO that the company's funding for it remains unchanged.
Wednesday's announcement made clear that the fund is actively seeking additional funders. And OpenAI's vice president of global affairs, Chris Lehane, provided a quote for the release, saying the company 'appreciates the opportunity to collaborate on this important project.'
But spokespeople for the AI developer declined to clarify its current role in the effort. When the partnership was first announced last summer, OpenAI said it was proud to be part of the initiative 'to utilize AI in support of local journalism across California.'
A program funded in 2022 by the Legislature, called the California Local News Fellowship and run out of UC Berkeley, has put $25 million into placing more than 100 early career reporters and editors into newsrooms. It's also running out of money.
On Wednesday, a state Senate budget subcommittee heard why the program should, or should not, be given another infusion of cash in a severely budget-strapped year in Sacramento. University of California Associate Director of State Budget Relations Seija Virtanen said the money would be exhausted by the end of 2027, while Republican state Sen. Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh questioned what the value was to taxpayers.
Appearing as a witness, Glazer put it plainly, saying: 'It's important because most of the decision that you make as senators comes from learning about problems in your community.'
He added: 'Local news is essential to our ability to be an independent democracy.'
Tyler Katzenberger contributed to this report.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Epic Games wins partial victory in Australian court against Google and Apple

timea few seconds ago

Epic Games wins partial victory in Australian court against Google and Apple

MELBOURNE, Australia -- Epic Games, the company behind the popular online game Fortnite, won a partial victory in an Australian court in U.S. billionaire chief executive Tim Sweeney's claim that Google and Apple engaged in anti-competitive conduct in running their app stores. Federal Court Justice Jonathan Beach on Tuesday upheld key parts of Epic's claim that the tech giants breached Australian competition laws by misusing their market power against app developers and using restrictive trade practices. Google and Apple 's dominance of the app market had the effect of substantially lessening competition and breached Australian law, Beach found. But the judge rejected some of Epic's claim including that Google and Apple engaged in unconscionable conduct as defined by Australian law. Sweeney is also challenging Google and Apple dominance in the app markets through the courts in the United States and Britain. The litigation began in August 2020 when Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store expelled Fortnite because Epic installed a direct payment feature in the extraordinarily popular game. The court ruled both companies pressured app developers including Epic through contracts and technology to sell their products through the two dominant app stores. Epic posted online that the judgment was: 'Another HUGE WIN for Epic Games!' Apple said the company 'faces fierce competition in every market where we operate.' 'We welcome the Australian court's rejection of some of Epic's claims, however, we strongly disagree with the Court's ruling on others,' Apple said in a statement. Google said it would review the judgment. Google and Apple could potentially appeal the ruling before the Federal Court full bench. 'We disagree with the court's characterisation of our billing policies and practices, as well as its findings regarding some of our historical partnerships, which were all shaped in a fiercely competitive mobile landscape on behalf of users and developers,' a Google statement said. Beach has yet to release a 952-page judgment on Epic's case against Apple or his 914-page judgment on the case against Google. The judge gave an oral summary of his findings during a 90-minute hearing Tuesday.

I biked 13 miles with the Apple Watch Ultra 2 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 — and there's a clear winner
I biked 13 miles with the Apple Watch Ultra 2 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 — and there's a clear winner

Tom's Guide

time2 minutes ago

  • Tom's Guide

I biked 13 miles with the Apple Watch Ultra 2 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 — and there's a clear winner

Which smartwatch is the more accurate fitness tracker, the Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 Classic or the Apple Watch Ultra 2? To find out, I wore the former on my left wrist and the latter on my right, before heading out on a 13-mile bike ride with 700-plus feet of elevation gain. Of course, this is far from the first time I've tested one of the best Samsung smartwatches against one of the best Apple Watch models. A few weeks ago, I biked along a similar route with the Apple Watch 10 vs. Galaxy Watch 8 Classic. In that showdown, Samsung came out on top. However, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 is a higher-end model than the Series 10. Will this make it more competitive against the lasted Galaxy Watch? There's only one way to find out! The Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 comes in three varieties, and the Classic is the highest-end model, boasting a rotating bezel, extra customizable Action Button, and up to 40 hours of battery per charge in our testing. You also get Google's excellent Gemini AI assistance built in. The Apple Watch Ultra 2 is Cupertino's toughest-built and longest-lasting smartwatch with 100 meters of water resistance (making it suitable for scuba diving), and 36 hours of battery per charge (72 hours in low power mode). It also sports a large, bright, and crisp display and tons of smart features, safety tools, and health apps. But first, how do the Apple Watch Ultra 2 and Galaxy Watch 8 Classic stack up feature-wise and price-wise? The former debuted in 2023, almost two years ago, and costs $799. It represents Apple's top-of-the-line model with 100 meters of water resistance, a bigger battery, and more sophisticated location tracking than the Apple Watch Series 10. The Galaxy Watch 8 Classic launched this summer, 2025. With a cost of $499, it's the priciest model in the Galaxy Watch 8 series, and the only model with a rotating bezel and programmable Action Button. The Galaxy Watch 8 Classic sits below the more rugged Galaxy Watch Ultra, which is a more direct competitor to the Apple Watch Ultra 2. Notably, when I biked 13 miles with the Apple Watch Ultra 2 vs. Galaxy Watch Ultra, the results were a draw. Will that be the case this time around? When it comes to onboard health and location tracking tech, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 and Galaxy Watch 8 Classic are very evenly matched. Each device has its respective brand's latest/greatest holistic sensor array, multi-band GPS, and altimeters for elevation tracking. Size and heft-wise, the devices are also quite similar. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. The Apple Watch Ultra 2 and Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 Classic each wear fairly large on the wrist. The Apple Watch is taller, 49mm versus 46mm, and the Galaxy Watch is wider, 46mm versus 43mm. They're similarly heavy, too. The Watch 8 Classic weighs in at 62.5 g (case only) and the Ultra 2 weighs in at 61.9 g (case only). Even in the summertime, I tend to wear gloves while cycling, and this ride was no exception. Unfortunately, due to the size of these devices, this meant constant worrying about the glove material accidentally bumping a button, potentially messing up the results of the comparison. Fortunately, that didn't occur. Displays on either watch max out at 3,000 nits, making them each easily viewable in direct sunlight, as was the case during this test. Battery life is also pretty similar. In our testing, the Ultra 2 cruised for 36 hours per charge, and the Galaxy Watch 8 Classic lasted for an average of 40 hours per charge. With so much in common, you're no doubt wondering which one claims victory in this showdown of the Apple Watch Ultra 2 vs. Galaxy Watch 8 Classic. Read on to find out. As always, for this bike test, I ran Strava on my iPhone 12 mini mounted to the handlebars of my bike. Neither watch was paired with a smartphone for the duration of the test to avoid any piggybacking off of location, elevation, speed or pace data. Apple Watch Ultra 2 Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 Strava Distance 13.20 miles 13.26 miles 13.30 miles Elevation gain 726 feet 774 feet 781 feet Average speed (moving) 10.5 mph 11.7 mph 11.7 mph Max speed 18.2 mph 29.5 mph 29.4 mph Average heart rate 164 bpm 165 bpm n/a Max heart rate 179 bpm 182 bpm n/a Calories burned 762 calories 748 calories n/a Battery drain 9% 10% n/a The best Apple Watch models seem to consistently churn out lower-than-expected speed data. All three tracking methods measured just about the same distance covered, with the Galaxy Watch 8 ever so slightly closer to Strava's calculation. Samsung also measured just about the same amount of elevation gain for my roughly 75-minute ride. Apple, meanwhile, likely undercounted by 50-plus feet. Both Strava and the Galaxy Watch 8 noted the same average moving speed of 11.7 mph and nearly the same maximum speed of around 29.5 mph. Apple's average speed of 10.5 mph isn't too far off from the others, but Apple's max speed is considerably less. In fact, from my testing while biking, the best Apple Watch models seem to consistently churn out lower-than-expected speed data. For example, when I tested the Apple Watch 10 vs. Garmin Forerunner 570, the former's speed data seemed to undersell my ride. The same occurred when I biked 12 miles with the Apple Watch 10 vs. Samsung Galaxy Watch 8. That said, heart rate data and calories burned line up pretty nicely between the Apple Watch and the Samsung device. The Galaxy Watch 8 Classic noted a slightly harder workout, in terms of cardio, despite measuring slightly fewer calories burned. To view my tracking results in real-time at a glance during the ride, I left the always-on display option on for both watches. The result was a similar level of battery drain. With more accurate distance, elevation, maximum, and average speed data, in this fitness tracking accuracy battle between the Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 Classic and Apple Watch Ultra 2, Samsung is the victor. As always, take these results with a grain of salt, because ultimately, either device is a great choice to track your daily/weekly workouts and keep tabs on things like sleep quality, heart health, and more. Which smartwatches or fitness trackers should I test next in a head-to-head competition? And what workout should I do? Let me know in the comments below.

Epic Games wins partial victory in Australian court against Google and Apple
Epic Games wins partial victory in Australian court against Google and Apple

San Francisco Chronicle​

time2 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Epic Games wins partial victory in Australian court against Google and Apple

MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — Epic Games, the company behind the popular online game Fortnite, won a partial victory in an Australian court in U.S. billionaire chief executive Tim Sweeney's claim that Google and Apple engaged in anti-competitive conduct in running their app stores. Federal Court Justice Jonathan Beach on Tuesday upheld key parts of Epic's claim that the tech giants breached Australian competition laws by misusing their market power against app developers and using restrictive trade practices. Google and Apple 's dominance of the app market had the effect of substantially lessening competition and breached Australian law, Beach found. But the judge rejected some of Epic's claim including that Google and Apple engaged in unconscionable conduct as defined by Australian law. Sweeney is also challenging Google and Apple dominance in the app markets through the courts in the United States and Britain. The litigation began in August 2020 when Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store expelled Fortnite because Epic installed a direct payment feature in the extraordinarily popular game. The court ruled both companies pressured app developers including Epic through contracts and technology to sell their products through the two dominant app stores. Apple said the company 'faces fierce competition in every market where we operate.' 'We welcome the Australian court's rejection of some of Epic's claims, however, we strongly disagree with the Court's ruling on others,' Apple said in a statement. Google said it would review the judgment. Google and Apple could potentially appeal the ruling before the Federal Court full bench. 'We disagree with the court's characterisation of our billing policies and practices, as well as its findings regarding some of our historical partnerships, which were all shaped in a fiercely competitive mobile landscape on behalf of users and developers,' a Google statement said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store