The Competition Commission’s provisional decision on the Google media fund is being framed as a lifeline for South African journalism.

In reality, it is a brazen move to cement a donor-backed media monopoly, ensuring that a widening group of elite, foreign-funded platforms and organisations control access to financial resources.

Under the guise of protecting journalism, the Commission has granted an exemption from competition laws, allowing a handpicked group of media houses to negotiate collectively for Google’s financial contributions—a move that is nothing short of collusion.

This manipulation is not, as they claim, about sustaining media diversity. It is a financial power grab designed to replace the dwindling funding once provided by USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

Over the past decade, donor-funded media organisations proliferated, emboldened by US and European backers who propped them up as the dominant voices in South African journalism.

When Donald Trump withdrew USAID and NED funding from media platforms, these organisations faced a crisis.

The Google media fund is their desperate attempt to secure a new financial lifeline, ensuring their continued dominance while systematically excluding independent platforms and competitors.

Australia handled this issue fairly through its News Media Bargaining Code (NMBC), which forced Google and Meta to compensate all media houses through individual negotiations.

This prevented monopolisation by ensuring each publication, large or small, had an equal chance to negotiate financial terms.

Transparency and accountability were built into the process.

Yet, in South Africa, the Competition Commission chose to abandon fairness, handing control of Google’s funds to a select few donor-funded organisations.

The same privileged media elite that has long benefited from Western grants is now securing a corporate revenue stream under the false banner of media sustainability.

At the centre of this scheme is William Bird, director of Media Monitoring Africa (MMA), a man who openly admits this exemption is not legally sound yet still attempts to justify it as a moral imperative.

His recent Mail & Guardian article is a display of the entitled arrogance that has long defined the donor-backed media sector.

He knows this exemption violates competition law, yet he insists that collusion is somehow necessary for the survival of journalism.

This level of hypocrisy and self-righteousness is precisely what figures like Elon Musk and Donald Trump have begun dismantling in Western media spaces—the monopolisation of truth by a select few, cloaked in faux wokeness and corporate-backed moral grandstanding.

A Web of Collusion Masquerading as Press Freedom

The organisations poised to control Google’s financial contributions are not independent players—they are part of a deeply connected network of donor-funded media entities.

This widening monopoly includes Daily Maverick, amaBhungane, Mail & Guardian, GroundUp, MMA, Code for Africa, Africa Check, and others that all draw from the same foreign donor pool.

These organisations have positioned themselves as ethical watchdogs, yet their funding structures tie them directly to US and European political interests.

No matter how they try to push this as a diverse media ecosystem, it is no more than an orchestrated monopoly.

These organisations function as an interconnected echo chamber, reinforcing each other’s narratives while strategically sidelining dissenting perspectives.

Through their dominance, they dictate which stories are amplified, which investigations receive resources, and—critically—who gets excluded from media funding.

The Google media fund has now become another tool in their arsenal—a financial filter designed to block independent media from accessing the resources necessary to survive.

The exclusion of Independent Media and IOL is the clearest proof of this agenda.

The justification? Independent Media/IOL is not a member of the Press Council or the Broadcast Complaints Commission of South Africa.

This reasoning falls apart under scrutiny, as IOL has its own independent ombudsman, providing the same accountability framework.

If media ethics were truly the concern, this model would be recognised. Instead, industry oversight is being used as a political tool to cut off funding to independent voices.

The Real Purpose of Misinformation Laws

In addition to this monopoly being about financial control it is also about narrative control.

The same bloc of donor-funded media houses has been aggressively pushing for stricter misinformation laws, which would cement their ability to dictate public discourse.

Fact-checking in South Africa is already dominated by Africa Check and MMA, both funded by the same donor ecosystem that backs the monopoly.

This ensures that their fact-checking aligns with Western political and economic interests. By tying misinformation laws to Google’s funding, they are ensuring that any publication that challenges their narratives will be financially starved and delegitimised.

This is not about combatting misinformation—it is about institutionalising censorship.

The Legal Case Against the Competition Commission

The Competition Commission’s exemption must be overturned.

It does not have the authority to rewrite competition laws to benefit a select group of organisations.

By allowing this media bloc to collectively bargain for Google’s funding, it has enabled blatant collusion, which is legally indefensible.

There are strong legal grounds to challenge this decision:

The Commission has manipulated competition law without due process, handing financial advantages to a single network of donor-funded media organisations.

There was no consultation with excluded stakeholders, particularly independent media houses that are being actively shut out of the funding process.

The proven, fair model used in Australia was ignored in favour of an exclusionary system that hands control of Google’s money to an entrenched elite.

Furthermore, the financial transparency of donor-funded media houses must be scrutinised.

If accountability is a prerequisite for funding eligibility, then all recipient organisations must disclose their financial records.

Yet, MMA has, allegedly, not published its financials for years, despite receiving multiple donor grants.

If transparency is a core principle of ethical journalism, then any organisation failing to meet this standard must be disqualified from Google’s fund.

The Fight for Media Independence

If South Africa is serious about preserving true media plurality, the Google media fund must be completely restructured.

The Competition Commission’s exemption must be overturned.

Google must negotiate directly with each media house, as was done in Australia, to prevent monopolisation.

All financial agreements between Google and media houses must be made public, preventing secret allocations and preferential treatment.

Independent and community media must be given equal access to Google’s funds, rather than being locked out by a self-appointed elite.

Fact-checking organisations must be structurally independent from the media houses they scrutinise, ensuring real accountability rather than ideological bias.

South Africans Must Reject This Media Monopoly

The Competition Commission’s complicity in creating a donor-backed media monopoly must not go unchallenged.

If this exemption is allowed to stand, South African journalism will become an extension of Western donor agendas, where only pre-approved narratives are published, and independent voices are financially and institutionally crushed.

This is not about Google—it is about the future of media independence in South Africa.

If the Commission is allowed to legalise collusion, the monopoly will be permanently entrenched. The public must demand transparency, and hold both the Competition Commission and Google accountable.

* Gillian Schutte is a film-maker, and a well-known social justice and race-justice activist and public intellectual. Follow Gillian on X - @GillianSchutte1 and on Facebook - Gillian Schutte.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.

IOL Opinion