Why would we copy Australia on newspaper content compensation?

Fascinating to read the editorial (“Google, Facebook ought to pay for the news they use,” The Herald, Sept. 7).

The Herald Editorial Board supports Google and Facebook paying their fair share for content.

A couple of words used in the board’s piece are “drag” and “require” … (the tech giants to negotiate through the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act). But, then, the piece redefines those actions by calling it a “subscription, just like the one most of our readers pay.” If a government law was to drag and require me to purchase content from The Daily Herald would you call that a subscription?

It continues by mentioning this type of arrangement is happening in Canada and Australia. I wonder how many of your readers are like me and don’t wake up each day wanting our country to be even just a little more like Canada and Australia?

Then, to further support your point, you mention Rep. Pramilia Jayapal as a co-sponsor of the JCPA legislation. She is a uniting politician to rally behind on this?

To balance the understanding for your readers, you might have provided us the inside info about how much The Daily Herald pays out for the majority of its content (to Associated Press, The Seattle Times, The Charlotte Observer, etc.). A quick look suggests the content of the printed Daily Herald is 70 percent (or more) from outside, not from your internal journalists.

Finally … kind of too bad about the printed typo of your parent company in this piece. Hope you don’t get too much about that one. You can fix it in the online version?

And, haven’t read an update on how that ask for donations from the community for local journalism faired. Did it reach goal?

Jeff Cornish

Snohomish