My concerns and annotations for SB686

Annotated and written by Chas Hundley, journalist & publisher

The concept of forcing massive tech companies who, in my view, are taking journalism content and using it in a way that amounts to theft is serious and I applaud Oregon legislators for trying to address that while providing funding for our local media ecosystem.

Last year's bill, SB 686, which I understand will be resurrected for the 2026 short session, is not the way to do it.

In their zeal, I fear legislators will end up doing incredible, irreversible harm to Oregon's growing independent journalism industry while enriching out-of-state corporations and reducing the content and quality of journalism in communities covered by tiny independent newspapers like mine.

The bill as written leaves small, locally-owned outfits scrambling for a tiny pot of funds that they must ask for in grant form in competition with non-journalism organizations asking for the same funding, which is very difficult for solo newsrooms to do due to staff and time constraints, while large chain corporations from out-of-state get to subsidize their journalists with easily accessed cash payments

I and my indie colleagues are committed to finding new and exciting ways to fund our robust journalism, like events, classes, and philanthropy, to name just a few. This bill would enrich our large out-of-state competitors, who would use their sudden influx of cash, if it ever materializes, to crush us with a regional model that focuses on only providing news in the largest communities while siphoning up ad dollars and subscribers in the overlooked communities we focus on.

The bill runs the risk that Meta and Google will simply ban news links as they have threatened, or in Canada's case, followed through on.

Google tested shutting off link traffic in California when similar legislation was proposed, and Meta/Facebook still does not allow news links on their sites in Canada because of their bargaining code law, the Online News Act.

Like it or not, Meta and Google drive a huge amount of traffic to our largely digital newspaper. We will close if Meta or Google ban news links.

This bill should not have been introduced last year without input from small publications. Now, legislators are considering trying to ram it through in a 35 day session, giving folks like me very little time to see what's in the bill and respond.

I have gone through last year's bill and highlighted just a few concerning sections; they are not all of them, but they stand out.

Scroll to read notes inline.

Page 4

(8) “News journalist” means an individual who is:
(a) Employed for an average of at least 30 hours per week during a calendar quarter as an employee of a digital journalism provider; and Note 1 Innovative hyperlocal newspapers sometimes rely on volunteers or infrequent freelance journalists, or are owner-operated. This section does not include these alternative employment models. Co-op style newsrooms (i.e., journalist-owned models) would also be killed under this model.

(b) Responsible for gathering, developing, preparing, directing the recording of, producing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, designing, presenting or publishing original news or information that concerns local, regional, national or international matters of public interest.

(9) “Online platform” includes an Internet website, online service, online application, mobile application or digital assistant.
(10) “Publisher” means a person that publishes an Internet website, online or mobile application or other digital service that:
(a) Provides information to an Oregon audience and has provided information to an Oregon audience for the previous two years;

(c) Engages professionals to create, edit, produce and distribute original content or original content for which a valid license has been obtained concerning local, regional, national or international matters of public interest through activities, including conducting interviews, observing current events, analyzing documents and other information or fact-checking through multiple firsthand or secondhand news sources; Note 2 AI slop risk

(A) Has generated at least $100,000 in annual revenue from its content in the previous calendar year; Note 3 $100,000 is an arbitrary number and will cut out small non-chain independent news publications in Oregon, owned by Oregonians. There is no reason to include an income qualifier to define what is and is not a digital journalism provider.

(B) Had an International Standard Serial Number assigned to an affiliated periodical before January 1, 2025; Note 4 ISSN is a legacy print mechanism that is not used by many digital startups. Journalism is not defined by an ISSN.

Page 5

SECTION 2. (1) A covered platform may not access for an Oregon audience the online content of a digital journalism provider unless the covered platform and digital journalism provider have an agreement that meets the requirements under subsection (2) of this section and the covered platform is in compliance with the agreement. Note 5 Anything involving direct negotiations will be a heavy burden on solo newsrooms (of which there are many) that do not have dedicated legal teams or enter negotiations, while out-of-state large corporations will, creating an unequal burden harming local small businesses and helping large companies. The risk that large tech companies will simply cut off small newsrooms entirely rather than pay them is higher too, as we matter to their bottom line less.

SECTION 2a. (1) A digital journalism provider may bring a civil action against a covered platform if: Note 6 As a solo news operator, I have neither the time, resources, or expertise to sue the LARGEST TECH COMPANIES IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE, while out-of-state corporations have the resources to do this, once again creating an unequal system harming homegrown news sites.

Page 6

(2) A covered platform that pays an amount under this section shall distribute 10 percent of the amount the covered platform pays to the Oregon Civic Information Consortium established under section 10 of this 2025 Act. Note 7 The 90/10 split here is far too unbalanced. If small publishers are going to have to take precious staff time to pursue this money, it should be a much higher split to represent the extra burden this bill places on our newsrooms.

Page 7

(b) The amount remaining after payment under paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be distributed proportionally by the number of news journalists who, in the previous calendar year, were employed by each digital journalism provider for the primary purpose of producing content for an Oregon audience. Note 8 Headcount greatly favors out-of-state corporations. The formula also rewards newsroom size/staffing levels, incentivizing quantity of journalism content over quality. This is particularly detrimental to rural newsrooms that are owner-operated or have less staff, but have equally important needs as larger newsrooms.

Page 12

(i) The digital journalism provider shall employ at least one news journalist for the primary purpose of producing content for an Oregon audience. Note 9 This immediately cuts out every solo owner-operated newsroom in Oregon, or newsrooms working with volunteers that are not nonprofits or small newsrooms that only employ someone for 29 hours etc.

Page 13

SECTION 10. (1)(a) There is established as a nonprofit corporation the Oregon Civic Information Consortium. The purpose of the consortium is to provide grants to support Oregon news content providers, journalism, news, public information projects and public interest initiatives that address Oregonians’ civic information needs. Note 10 This is another serious example of the unequal tier this creates that will harm small newsrooms. While largely out-of-state corps will benefit from getting cold hard cash if the bill works, small outfits like mine will be left to apply for grants, using our precious time to beg for small amounts of money that must be reviewed and awarded and this language will allow non-journalism programs to seek money from a journalism funding bill. Why? All language awarding this money to anything other than a journalism outfit should be tossed.

Page 14

(2) The consortium shall have a board of directors. The board shall set strategic priorities and metrics to guide the consortium’s grant programs and other initiatives. The board shall consist of 13 members appointed by the Governor and subject to confirmation by the Senate in the manner prescribed in ORS 171.562 and 171.565, as follows: Note 14 I am completely opposed to elected leaders choosing who chooses which news organizations to fund. Journalism must remain independent to serve a watchdog role on government.