In Defense of Journalism Policy
Today’s Washington Post op-ed by Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols recovers a past too many Americans have forgotten and sets the record straight on the government’s role in protecting journalism.
“We seek to renew a rich if largely forgotten legacy of the American free-press tradition, one that speaks directly to today's crisis,” they write. “The First Amendment necessarily prohibits state censorship, but it does not prevent citizens from using their government to subsidize and spawn independent media.”
McChesney and Nichols, two of the co-founders of Free Press, are responding to a common misconception about government involvement in journalism is antithetical to freedom of the press. Policy has always shaped journalism, and for a long time it was policy that helped ensure freedom of the press.
They write:
-
The post-colonial press system was built on massive postal and printing subsidies. The first generations of Americans never imagined that the market would provide sound or sufficient journalism. The notion was unthinkable. They established enlightened subsidies, which broadened the marketplace of ideas and enhanced and protected core freedoms.
Some may read their essay and wrongly assume that they are calling for a Big Media bailout, or for some kind of “state-run media.” These are the same knee-jerk reactions levied against Len Downie and Michael Schudson after their report last week called for government action to support the future of journalism. But freedom of the press and smart media policies are not mutually exclusive.
McChesney and Nichols anticipate this critique, and make clear that ”bailing out existing media conglomerates would be morally and politically absurd.” Instead, they call for expanding the role of public and community media and developing enlightened policies that foster “post-corporate low-profit news operations that realize the potential of the Internet.”
Critics will certainly pose other questions: What about the free market? Why not wait for new paywall software? Why not let all this uncertainty shake out before getting the government involved?
The authors point out that currently, “the marketplace now eliminates journalism jobs at a rate in excess of 1,000 a month.” If we believe, as the Supreme Court does, that our Constitution is “predicated on the assumption of an informed and participating citizenry” then we can’t just sit back and wait to see what happens.
We have a long history of government involvement in our media. We ought to be proud that America’s founders saw such a central role for journalism and were committed to supporting it with public interest policies and strong First Amendment protections.
Let’s reclaim that history and put policy back on the drawing board. With input from citizens and journalists, not just corporate execs and lobbyists, we can write policies that can save the news.
Share this post on Facebook 
Share this post on TwitterFree 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.
Comments:
End the Big Broadcast Swindle
The FCC is reviewing its media ownership rules and needs to hear from you. Tell the FCC we need rules that serve the public, not big broadcasters.
Change the Channels
Check out the interactive map to see consolidating newsrooms near you.
For the first time in
For the first time in American history, we are approaching a point where it will no longer have minimal resources (relative to the size of the nation) dedicated to reporting the news. The prospect that this era of information "can be characterized by spin out of control and propaganda, where the voice better financed almost always wins, and cynicism, ignorance and demoralization reached pandemic levels, is real. So, too , is the threat to the American experience.
Mathew Watch Anime Online Manager
The problem with journalism
... is the people attracted to work in the field.
Please tell me why my critique is wrong.
http://areyoutargeted.com/2009/10/29/interactions-with-the-press/
Why the market has failed
Hi Jbrown. It seems like you have some strong feelings about this issue, and I appreciate your passion for our free press. I feel just as passionate as you.
I agree that the media we have right now is not serving us well at all. You are right that it is full of irrelevant celebrity gossip and sensationalism. I - like you - are tired of hearing from talking heads who don't address the issues real people care about. All of this is a result of the free market. The free market has produced junk news. That's why we need an alternative. We don't want to silence what's out there, we just think communities deserve real news.
The point of this blog post and the article it was describing, was that government has always - since the founding of our country - supported our free press through public policy. But too often - people like you and me get left out of those discussions. We should have a say in what those policies look like. Policy and subsidies don't have to replace the market. I believe that we need for-profit news and media ors, but I also believe we need an equally robust noncommercial, public media.
Policies that support journalism don't have to corrupt the process of journalism. I trust journalists' independence, and I believe that strong firewalls can be put in place to ensure the first amendment is protected.
What a crock!
I am sure that Benjamin Franklin went to the Continental Congress with his tail between his legs and his hand out asking, "it is really hard to find news and report on it accurately, can you guys give me a subsidy to keep my presses running?" Wrong. The reason that government has kept its filthy hands off of the media for the past two hundred and thirty years is because the media is supposed to be a watchdog of the government for the people. Most journalists have the idea that they are going to get into journalism to shine light on the truth. Where is that now? Now, if the government 'subsidizes (aka bails out) the media, are they going to want to report about the downfalls of their employer. For this is what it would do, make the media another branch of the government, because it depends on the government for its well being and continued operation. If more people wanted to watch CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, or any other network that is running into hard times, they would watch these networks. However, the same people that made their livings off of the free market and its greatness are now whining and complaining that the free markets don't work. Did the market stop working because you are now on the loosing end? Or did it stop working because people of their own free will shut your program off because it is out of sink with the way the country really is today? Or did the free markets stop working when the media stopped reporting news that really mattered? I'm sorry but I don't care about the Swine Flu; thats right the SWINE FLU. What I care about is the fact that according to Rasmussen 69% of American adults believe that congress cares more about the media than the peoples concerns. Or how about reporting that also according to Rasmussen that only 15% of people in our country think that congress is doing a good or excellent job while 53% think that they are doing a poor job. Or Another novel concept how about revealing that the Harry Pelosi senate health care overhaul bill is 1900 pgs long. 1900 pages. Or lastly, what makes the media think that we want talking heads that are so far separated from what we the people really think, feel and believe, spouting the talking points of the democratic party. Why aren't the Mass media corporations and their subsidiaries reporting on what is actually going on? This is the question that most of the people I've talked to want answered.