Journalism Policy in the Spotlight
We created SaveTheNews.org to argue for the importance of public policy in discussions about the future of journalism. Last week, however, policy took center stage with three articles examining our government’s possible role in fostering a robust and diverse free press in America. The articles came from an array of sources – a scholar, a journalist and a pair of advocates – and appeared in newspapers across the country, from Washington, D.C., to Seattle.
Two weeks ago, Politico reported that the Washington Post was planning to hold industry-sponsored salons designed to give lobbyists direct and “unconfrontational” access to the Post’s reporters and editors, as well as to members of Congress and the Obama administration. The revelation was followed by an outpouring of criticism and a swift reversal by the Washington Post, which promptly canceled the events. The paper’s cancellation and letter of apology to its readers have done nothing to quell the buzz on blogs and Twitter about the paper’s motivations.
One of the best analyses came from the Washington Post’s economic policy blogger Ezra Klein, who cited the Post’s failed experiment as evidence that we need to reexamine the relationship between government and news outlets. “Moral of the day,” writes Klein, “Selling access to government officials who are willing to contribute their time and power to the media's cause is a bad revenue model for newspapers. Another way of saying that is that newspapers should not be funded by indirect government subsidies. But the whole brouhaha confirms my long-held belief that newspapers should be funded by direct government subsidies.”
Klein’s argument in a nutshell is that the advertising model, in which outside interests pay for access (to readers, to reporters, to government officials, etc.), is fundamentally broken. He says, “Cross-subsidization from advertising and classifieds worked so long as they worked. Those days are over.”
News is not a commodity
Klein continues: “The news, after all, is not a market good. Among other things, it is not profitable to sell it. But we think society needs it. Thankfully, society has developed models for funding things we deem important but don't entirely trust to the private market. We have public universities and public centers for disease research and public firefighting departments and a public military and public roads. Why should news be different?”
While Klein looks to models such as NPR and the BBC as examples of how an independent, adversarial, publicly funded press can function, James Hamilton of Duke University is interested in a new model called L3Cs, or Low-Profit Limited Liability Corporations.
Hamilton describes L3Cs as “companies with low profits but high positive spillovers on their communities.” A time-tested business model, L3Cs are organized and operated primarily to serve a charitable purpose, with profit a secondary concern. Adopting the L3C model would help to free newspapers from market pressures. L3Cs allow for a diversity of funding streams, and they permit foundations and socially conscious investors to invest in papers’ public mission instead of in ad space.
“If a metro newspaper were run as a L3C, the presence of investors who focused on the quality of public affairs coverage would help managers make the case for watchdog stories,” Hamilton explains. “And if the L3C ended up doing well and doing good at the same time, the taxes on any profits would be paid as they were distributed among the investors.”
Federal legislation and changes to the tax code are necessary for newspapers to restructure as L3Cs. Draft legislation was introduced in the last session of Congress, but has yet to be introduced in the current session. Free Press discusses L3Cs and other nonprofit, low-profit and cooperative models for news in our report, Saving the News: Toward a National Journalism Strategy.
Journalism as a public good
In a July 5 Seattle Times op-ed titled “Saving America's Democracy-Sustaining Journalism,” Free Press staffers Victor Pickard and Joe Torres argue that journalism is an essential public service and critical infrastructure for our nation.
As with other public services like electricity and clean water, we need public support for a new system of journalism that reinvigorates investigative and beat reporting, holds our leaders accountable, and is accessible to all. To get there, we will undoubtedly need to employ a range of strategies, including the two described by Klein and Hamilton.
The government will have to play a vital role in this effort as we make the shift from print to digital, from market product to public service, from an exclusive broadcast model to a distributed network model. Pickard and Torres outline how this critical juncture can open up new opportunities for the public not only to be involved in journalism, but also in the policy debates that will reshape journalism.
“During this transitional moment,” they write, “there's much that needs to happen to rescue failing news operations while supporting the creation of new ones. First, we must rescue good assets from bad owners. Journalism is too precious to leave its future in the hands of absentee corporate owners.” As we shore up the short term crisis, we need to set our perspective on longer term answers including the creation of a journalism jobs program that supports investigative reporting, research-and-development efforts for experimentation with innovative journalism models, and a new public-media system that transforms public broadcasting into a world-class noncommercial news operation.”
Pickard and Torres emphasize the uniqueness of the opportunity before us, the chance for citizens and communities to re-imagine and advocate for the future of journalism right now. “Building a new media system will require broad engagement from journalists, academics, philanthropists, activists, policymakers, media owners and — most important — the public. We must be proactive through public policy and public engagement to advocate for an inclusive media system. For too long, journalism has marginalized communities of color, women and other disenfranchised groups. The depth of this crisis calls for something more than window dressing or incremental reforms,” they wrote.
For more on how you can get involved, join our campaign here at SaveTheNews.org.



Again Ignore the Problem
The problem is the CONTENT. Journalists want to change the world by writing biased and self-serving ideological articles. The internet exposed this. The solution is to go back to unbiased fairly researched articles. Most news today belongs on the opinion page.
Journalists are at a crossroads. Lose all creditability by slanting articles according to ideology, but feel good about saving the world, OR start writing well researched fair article that expose the waste, corruption, double dealing, lying, double standards that exist in government. Its always been there, it will always be there, regardless of party. The only difference now, is that one party is given a free ride and everybody knows it.
If journalists are going to lie by omission about politics why should they be believed about anything else. Political standards are down because one party can do no wrong. Want to raise political standards then report no matter which party is at fault. What to get paid to provide news, then write news, not propaganda.
Change
It is obvious that the corporate newspaper, which includes most of the large city newspapers, is dying. It is breathing but the breaths are not deep enough to satisfy stockholders or the management that is responsible to them. So papers are becoming less than good fish wrappers. (The fish are disappearing, too, but that is another story.)
Living in the LA neighborhood I am serviced (some would see the servicing as bending over) by the LATimes, a paper that has rapidly become anemic and which I am just about to cancel. I shudder at the act but I do not get thirty-odd dollars of value monthly from the dying patient whose doctor is a bearded man from Chicago who hates newspapers and is less good at predicting market changes than I am! (He is about to have his baseball team declare bankruptcy, I read in the NYTimes.)
So what do we do? We take a cooperative of the best and the brightest and the under or unemployed and form a group on the model of Magnum or the United Artists of yore. Write the national and international stories to be run in a new breed of newspapers to be regionally owned and subject to the high-minded rules of the cooperative (intelligent objectivity and public service at the core) while a local group of journalists do the local stories and write the editorials (do editorials really matter anymore???) Everybody pays based on market size and the local boys do the selling of the product and the solicitation of 75% of the advertising. The co-op solicits the national and international ads through a separate hands off wing dedicated to money.
The exchange of information, the digging of fact, the openness of the journalistic endeavor are essential to the maintenance of democracy. We are getting some of it from The NYTimes. Clearly the most serious job of international, national and local news. Some of the second tier, like the Wash. Post, are provincial papers with company town news and fair international coverage. But the breadth and eptha are not there.
I think this model could work. I think it better because we can not do without something without falling further apart than we did under eight years of semi-responsible journalism and irresponsible governing.
Interesting idea
Richard
Thanks for your comments - just today TechCrunch wrote a blog post articulating a similar vision: What is the best talent in journalists just got up and left, and started their own independent local news outlets...
You can read it here: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/30/what-if-the-new-new-york-times/
Solutions
It seems to me one of the major sources of expense in newspaper publishing is paper and printing. I'm not sure how much it costs to print a years worth of issues of the New York Times or the local paper, but I imagine it's a lot. Page counts shrink, advertising space increases and news space dwindles to the point where there isn't much news, important news is left out.
Why not do something like bundle national and local papers and sell subscriptions with a free Kindle or develop some other good reader? This would eliminate paper cost and waste, while also putting a powerful reading tool in the hands of consumers. The first year you might have somewhat of a loss, but after everyone has a reader, you've completely eliminated printing costs and you can use that money to pay journalist salaries.
That's my idea. I wasn't sure where to put it, so I put it here.
Dave - a lot of people have
Dave - a lot of people have wondered what kinds of innovation could come from newspapers if they did not have to spend all that money printing and delivering papers. The Kindle idea is one that has gotten a lot of attention.
With any idea that moves more and more news online we need to be aware that roughly 30% of America doesn't have adequate access to high speed internet. The future of the digital divide is also a journalism issue.
A Wall Between Press and State?
I look forward to hearing more about your ideas for reforming journalism, but I think government support is a fundamentally bad idea. Ultimately, someone must foot the bill to support quality journalism, and whoever controls the purse strings...
It may be a bit hasty of me to jump to such conclusions, but government supported press seems corrosive to journalistic integrity and freedom of the press.
We share the same concerns
We share the same concerns Gilbert, but the government has long played a role in shaping our media system. Our goal should be to make a place at the table when those policies are being make so that the public interest can be represented. Too often policies benefit wall street over main street. We are interested in models that can drive more investment and innovation into the journalism sphere while maintaining a firewall to protect authors and editors. There are some good models out there. Above all else we need journalists on the job, and we need them to be free to be the watchdogs they are meant to be.
The problem with papers
The biggest gripe I have with papers is that they are too narrow, too focused on fast-gratification articles, and few are willing to take on tough issues. Government-led efforts to improve won't help, and here is why: the press has a critical role to play in *controlling* government. The first time they clash, the plug will be pulled.
As but one example, I'm aware of several legal cases in Illinois involving elder exploitation (several million dollars from just the few victims I'm aware of), with perps aided by lawyers, and judges turn a blind eye (or worse). Do you think when their golden egg is threatened they will let a paper publicized it? No chance: despite flagging sales and a real need, groups like the Chicago Tribune and Sun Times joined the silent chorus and refused to even send a reporter, let alone check the story.
Blogs aren't a solution: the Internet is so big, and it's so easy to stumble on material from another city, state, or country, that it results in little more than noise and irate readers (at best). Without a unified voice, and a true advocate for people, blogs just aren't making much of a difference, and certainly nothing like newspapers of years past.
Which is why the government will eventually let them fail - fewer prying eyes.
what belongs on the front page
This site responds to a campaign we've been carrying on in relative anonymity for nearly 5 yrs. So today I added STN to the blogroll and to this post.