Traditional media in Australia is not nearly as homogeneously left-leaning as it is here in Sweden. That’s already a big difference. But the real question is: why are they even in this fight with Meta in the first place?

If traditional media had actually done their job — reported news and features objectively, factually, and without obvious bias — there would be far less demand for alternative media. People might still be paying for newspapers and trusting the big outlets.

Instead, Australia passed the News Media Bargaining Code in 2021, forcing Google and Meta to pay Australian news companies for using their journalism. Meta eventually signed some deals, but chose not to renew them in 2024–2025 and started reducing news in the feed. The Australian government responded in 2026 with a new tightening called the News Bargaining Incentive. If Meta and others don’t make new agreements, they now risk a 2.25% tax on their Australian revenue — money that’s supposed to support journalism. Read more about Meta’s strong reaction here

Here’s what fascinates me. If the traditional media had kept their credibility intact, they wouldn’t need governments to force Big Tech to pay them. Supply and demand is one of the simplest concepts in the world — if people actually wanted what you’re selling, you wouldn’t need politicians to twist arms on your behalf.

Instead of fixing their own bias and relevance problem, many outlets are now begging governments to make tech companies subsidize them. Classic case of wanting to eat the cake and keep it too.

Maybe the real solution isn’t more forced payments. Maybe it’s producing journalism so good that people actually choose to pay for it again.

What do you think — is this a fair way to save journalism, or just another example of legacy media avoiding accountability?

---

This is a new post on the new dewlar.me blog.
You can find the old blog here:https://mrsdewlar.blogspot.com

---