Journalism’s Hybrid System
Last week, Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia University, published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled, “Journalism Needs Government Help.” As Bollinger argues, evidence is mounting that there simply is not enough private capital from traditional revenue sources such as advertising, subscriptions and philanthropy to pay for the quality journalism our communities need. Slowly but surely, people are conceding that there is a role for carefully crafted public policy that will foster a new age of innovative, diverse, local and hard-hitting reporting.
Critics paint opinions like Bollinger’s as advocating for another “government hand out” or “giving up on the free market.” Nowhere in Bollinger’s essay, or in reports from the Knight Commission, USC Annenberg School of Journalism, Columbia University, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission, does anyone argue for replacing the commercial media sector with a government-funded monolith.
We need to focus on strengthening our current public media system and reimagining an even more robust non-commercial journalism sector in America. Our nation needs both. Advocating for one is not a dismissal of the other.
Indeed, Bollinger spells this out expertly. “American journalism is not just the product of the free market, but of a hybrid system of private enterprise and public support,” he writes. “We should think about American journalism as a mixed system, where the mission is to get the balance right.”
This is not about asking the government for a hand out or giving up on the marketplace; it is acknowledging that American media has always had both commercial and non-commercial media. For too long, we have neglected the role of the latter and put all our emphasis on the former. As our commercial media sector struggles with the economic realities of the day, and many “news” outlets give up on hard-hitting journalism, public media and nonprofits are rising to fill in the void. There is room for both. Indeed, there is need for both.
Journalism by the people or by multinational companies
Vesey:
The government has always played a roll in both funding and promoting the growth through innovative policy of the media. Indeed, the media system you see today was largely supported by the government in its infancy. Whether it was the newspaper subsidies through the post office, the political press, or the funding of media through public notices, the government has always had its money and its hand in journalism.
Before I go further, let’s find common ground. I think we can agree that democracy depends on an active and antagonistic press that polices the government. Indeed, the history of American journalism is a rich one, spanning hundreds of years.
The problem for commercial news outlets is that news in the 21st century is ubiquitous. It is repurposed and repackaged, linked and tweeted, and given away for free. This reduces the commercial value of journalism, while the inherent societal value remains. Simply, journalism’s economic value is relatively little, while its social value is immense.
As such commercial media can't fund all of the quality journalism democracy needs to survive. We've already seen newsrooms shed almost all investigative reporting, and some estimate the loss in annual reporting is upwards of $1.6 billion.
As such, we must look to other ways to sustain journalism and in effect sustain democracy. This is not to say we should give up on commercial journalism, but rather that we should look towards new ways to compliment commercial journalism.
The United States spends about $1.43 per citizen on funding for public media. In comparison, the UK spends almost $100 per citizen. In spite of United States’ tiny amount of funding for public media, public media still manages to create hard-hitting enterprise journalism. PBS was recently tapped for 37 Emmy nominations for, among others, investigative reporting–more than any other news outlet. This isn’t a reason to say “Well, it looks like they’re doing alright with their current funding,” but rather “Wow, think what they could do with a little more funding.”
I think it is worth asking, “What is quality media worth to the United States?” We can listen to Glenn Beck and Keith Olberman squabble (thanks commercial media), or we can fund a public media that is the public's media in the truest sense of the word.
While I appreciate your concern about potential government abuses, on closer analysis, it is simply not founded. Trust in public media far out paces trust in commercial media. Additionally, studies have shown that while the commercial media were covering the run up to the Iraq War like it was a Hollywood movie, public media-government funded media-were raising critical questions that the mainstream media never did and in providing information debunking myths like WMDs,a link between Iraq and al Qaeda, and the supposed international support for the war. It is exactly this type of critical media we must preserve.
Read More: http://bit.ly/bm378z
Public media system way broken; More $ alone not the answer
Matt -- I compiled all of the studies of PBS concerning its coverage in the run-up to the Iraq invasion here -- http://zcommunications.org/a-litany-of-lies-and-omissions-by-scott-sanders and came to a very different conclusion from yours Matt. Please share with us the "studies" you refer to in your comment.
Our public media system is way broken, mainly because it is run by professional journalists and paternalistic elites who claim to "know best". Read more here -- http://www.media-ocracy.com/?p=1049
Only a robust, publicly funded media sector that is directly accountable to the public can force - by the shame of positive example - the commercial journalism sector to be closer to honest. Public media even in its current warped, propagandistic, undemocratic version IS better than commercial media. But that's not saying much, since most commercial media is so godawful. I repeat for the umpteenth time here on these Free Press pages: more funding alone for public media is not the answer. We need to start talking about the other, more important part of the solution: direct community governance of public media. End of sermon.
journalism and the gov't
This one is simple. Under no circumstances should the gov't be involved in the media. No matter how "well crafted" the assistance would be it will be abused. Who would decide who rec'd help and who would decide even what constituted journalism . Just like those that want a ban on "hate media" it always comes down to who makes the decision. The government must under no circumstances ever have a role in financing or determining what is the media in any form.Our democratic system absolutely depends on it..........
It's not so simple
Under no circumstances? I beg to differ. There's nothing wrong with government financing AS LONG AS the public has direct, democratic local control, as is often the case with public libraries, public schools, community colleges, and public utilities. A number of PEG access centers - with member elected boards - are funded through franchise agreements with cable companies overseen by local government. Another kind of example is Pacifica radio; every year - without fail - it receives some of its money through, you guessed it, public funding. Please note that, unlike the less trustable NPR and PBS outlets http://zcommunications.org/a-litany-of-lies-and-omissions-by-scott-sanders Pacifica has member elected boards --
http://www.pacifica.org/governance/pacbylaws.html
So we really need to start expanding our thinking on this way too common knee jerk aversion to government funding of media.
Please read -- "Elite Control or Community Governance of Public Service Media: Which Will it Be?" http://www.media-ocracy.com/?p=1049