Journalism Crisis: A Way Forward

These days, it seems like every attempt at public policy gets called a bailout. But not all bailouts are good public policy, and not all good public policy requires a bailout. Sometimes, the public policy process is actually a way to create systemic change.

It’s this sort of solution we need if we are to contend with our journalism crisis – not a bailout of the old guard media system, but a national journalism strategy aimed at bringing together government, activists, industry and the public to craft policies that will support quality journalism.

This conversation is already happening on several fronts, most recently on September 24, when Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), chair of the Joint Economic Committee, held a hearing titled, "The Future of Newspapers: The Impact on the Economy and Democracy.” Calling newspapers “institutions that are so critical to our democracy,” Rep. Maloney said she convened the hearing in response to the mounting job losses in journalism and to newsroom closures around the country.

Maloney said it is “clear that we need to explore alternative business models to ensure an independent and vibrant press.” She believes that one solution to the problems facing the newspaper industry may be to allow newspapers to become nonprofits that can serve their communities without the burden of excessive profit demands.

The hearing did not focus on specific legislation; rather, it seemed to be an attempt to begin a conversation about the state of newsgathering in the age of declining newspaper revenues.

Some highlights from the witnesses:

Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, used his testimony to talk about the phenomenon of newspaper readership holding steady while revenues decline. And with funding for reporting plummeting, Rosenstiel fears that the press’ watchdog function will slip away:

So should we care whether newspapers survive? Perhaps not. Typewriters have come and gone. But I believe we do have a stake as citizens in having reporters who are independent, who work full time, and who go out and gather news, not just talk about it, and who try to get the facts and the context right. And it’s not just the high-lying investigative reporters I have in mind, but perhaps even more so, the reporters who simply show up week after week, sit in the front row, and bear witness, and who, simply by their presence, say to those in power on behalf of all the rest of us, you are being watched.

Rosenstiel was followed by Paul Starr, a professor of sociology and public affairs and the Stuart Professor of Communications and Public Affairs at Princeton University. Starr began his testimony by outlining the government’s historical support of the press. He believes that the current business model is failing newspapers, and by extension, journalism. It is time, according to Starr, to consider public policy options, including nonprofit status for newspapers and increased support for public media. Echoing Rosenstiel, Starr lamented the loss of watchdog journalism. He drew the committee’s attention to the drop in the number of reporters covering state and local government, and to the repercussions of that drop for citizens and democracy:

The premise of federalism is that by devolving significant areas of public decision-making to government at the state and local level, we bring them closer to the people. But if there is no independent journalism at those levels, the people will be in the dark about much of what those governments are doing. This is not a liberal or a conservative issue. The founders were right to see a robust, free press as a bulwark of liberty. And they were right in their time to provide concrete assistance to ensure the press developed throughout the country. We must figure out how to keep that tradition going in our time as well.

Also testifying was John Sturm, president and CEO of the Newspaper Association of America, a trade organization representing nearly 2,000 newspapers. He introduced specific financial ideas, including allowing newspapers to spread net operating losses over five years (instead of two), and to extend future contributions to defined benefit plans. He was very clear that the industry did not want a bailout, but could gain from a revised tax code to help it through the economic downturn.

The final witness was Denise Rolark Barnes, publisher of The Washington Informer, a weekly newspaper serving the African-American community in Washington, D.C. Barnes cautioned Congress against focusing solely on the daily and general interest papers. She also encouraged the representatives to think about policies that could promote advertising in ethnic media.

While Maloney’s hearing drew only a few members of Congress and little press attention, it was an important step toward a much-needed national conversation about the future of journalism. But sparsely attended hearings and piecemeal solutions will not be enough to ensure the future of newsgathering. What this country needs now is a national journalism strategy that will weave together a multitude of ideas and options, laying the groundwork for the future.

It is imperative that we link together all the public policy voices, all the experiments and all the innovations happening on- and offline. Instead of competing for attention and money, we need to bring everyone together to coordinate our efforts and find the best solutions. A national journalism strategy is a way forward.

We appreciate that Rep. Maloney is thinking about how government can promote policies that will secure journalism’s future. Now, let’s expand the conversation and begin moving toward true solutions.

Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Free Press does not support or oppose any candidate for public office. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media and universal access to communications.