Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) contribute to illness, especially among marginalized communities and children targeted by the beverage industry. SSB taxes can reduce consumption, illness burden, and health inequities, while generating revenue for health programs, and as one way to hold the industry responsible for their harmful products and marketing malpractices. Supporters and opponents have debated SSB tax proposals in news coverage - a key source of information that helps to shape public policy debates. To learn how four successful California-based SSB tax campaigns were covered in the news, we conducted a content analysis, comparing how SSB taxes were portrayed. We found that pro-tax arguments frequently reported data to expose the beverage industry's outsized campaign spending and emphasize the health harms of SSBs, often from health professionals. However, pro-tax arguments rarely described the benefits of SSB taxes, or how they can act as a tool for industry accountability. By contrast, anti-tax arguments overtly appealed to values and promoted misinformation, often from representatives from industry-funded front groups. As experts recommend additional SSB tax proposals, and as the industry mounts legislative counter-tactics to prevent them, advocates should consider harnessing community representatives as messengers and values-based messages to highlight the benefits of SSB taxes.