Slashdot Mirror
Journalists Looking For Government Money
We've been following the ongoing struggles of the print media, watching as some publications have died off and others have held to outdated principles and decried the influence of the internet. A side effect of this has been many journalists put out of work and many others fearful that informed reporting is on its way out as well. Now, an editorial in the Washington Post calls for a solution journalists would likely have scoffed at only a few years ago: federal subsidies. Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols write, "What to do? Bailing out media conglomerates would be morally and politically absurd. These firms have run journalism into the ground. If they cannot make it, let them go. Wait for 'pay-wall' technologies, billionaire philanthropists or unimagined business models to generate enough news to meet the immense demands of a self-governing society? There is no evidence that such a panacea is on the horizon. This leaves one place to look for a solution: the government." They hasten to add, "Did we just call for state-run media? Quite the opposite."
They have run journalism into the ground...
If they would move past "Infotainment" and got back to writing good "News" instead of creating "Crisis" and attacking an administration simply to raise advertising funding I'd be inclined to buy a newspaper to read.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
What a fantastic way to ensure a free press: have them paid by the very institution they're supposed to be the watchdogs for. I'm sure they won't forget how to be objective and unbiased though... /sarcasm
Else we'll have the situation with Boscovs which was bailed-out, but after examining the store, I think should have died.
This store has not been modernized its look since the 1980s, still employs three people to man every single register (wasteful), and carries product a modern consumer has little-to-no interest in buying (sewing patterns & machines to make your own clothes). Other stores like Penneys and Sears have streamlined their operations, eliminating product that doesn't sell, and having 3 employees serve an entire QUARTER of a store not just one register. They've cut costs and grown more efficient. Boscovs has not.
Government bail-outs for stores just encourage inefficiency. Ditto bail-outs for newspapers. Let the papers innovate or pass-away into history (along with horsewhips and cobblers).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Once you start getting $$$ from good ole goobermint teet they pretty much tell you what you can do. Same will happen with the media. After all, if they allow journalists to get money, how are they going to control who gets the $$$ or not?
It's simple! They only fund people that are "favorable" to this years 'fad' administration.
How would government financing of media be anything but state-run media? The media is already tainted with clear and evident bias. And that's on all fronts, for those who want to taunt Fox news. We expect it from commentators and that is generally where the most overt lies but most news agencies get their news from AP and Reuters feeds. And many of them frankly read like commentary. As if personal bias hasn't destroyed true journalism over the past several decades what do you think asking for a hand-out from an administration already quite intolerant of dissent is going to do?
I'm sure the constant threat of their government funding being cut would NEVER affect their critical coverage of said government.
a state-run media is exactly what they're calling for. Craven fools.
Dog is my co-pilot.
The thing is, the criticism they'll hand out will be like the BBC, bitching about how the government isn't doing enough.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Am I the only person who is slightly appalled by saving a "medium"? I mean, fuck, why don't we just bailout the papyrus manufacturers while we're at it?
Obviously it's time to bail out Polaroid, or else there won't be any quality pictures ever taken ever again!!
Journalism will thrive. It will go back to its roots: pamphleteers. The idea of the monolithic newspaper journalistic elite is a product of a brief period during which corporations controlled the best distribution channels. Now they don't. Bloggers do. And journalism will be the better to show for it.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
A solution journalists would have scoffed at a few years ago? Given that more of them are left-leaning Democrats than any other specific political orientation, why would journalists have opposed government subsidy?
Look, these guys claim that the job of journalism is to "question, analyze and speak truth to power". What a weaselly bunch of crap. They'll cover up anything for people they like (and that crosses the political spectrum). They even quote Obama as saying "Government without a tough and vibrant media is not an option for the United States of America." This is the same guy whose administration says that Fox News isn't a real news organization, mostly because a lot of its shows spend their time attacking him and his policies - i.e., being tough and vibrant. If you disagree with my politics, then imagine if instead of the Republican kabuki of not financially supporting information about abortion in worldwide birth control efforts were suddenly to apply to domestic newspapers the next time the political tide turns. Do you think that's good for democracy?
They then cite the historical example of some printing and postal subsidies (presumably similar to the current subsidies for books and other media via mail) and then suggest we should honor that by "greatly expand[ing] funding for public and community media, and establish[ing] policies that help convert dying daily newspapers into post-corporate low-profit news operations that realize the potential of the Internet." Do I get to qualify for "public and community" funding if I add a couple of news items to my posts about how home sales are doing in my neighborhood? (They're fine, FWIW.) Because otherwise it sounds suspiciously like how "community" funding keeps getting distributed via the same few organizations - the ones with the connections get solid government funding, and in return they toe the line.
I like newspapers. I enjoy sitting down on Sunday morning and slowly making my way through the whole thing. So, apparently, does the president. But making public policy based on the Sunday morning habits of the upper middle class is wasteful snobbery. They're dead. Move on. And if you're a journalism major, strongly consider switching.
There is a crisis for journalists as a result of the sudden crash in their industry but that crash isn't the result of some horrible failure of the market for journalism. Just the opposite. The newspaper industry has hit bottom because the internet has made the buisness of reporting so much more efficient. I mean just thinking about the huge number of daily papers across the states carrying the same national and international news on print is enough to make one sick at the waste. Not only does it cost a great deal to publish a print daily but each of these dailies employs editors and layout people to format the same news availible anywhere in their particular style. Many of them even insist on hiring their own reporters even when it's obviously duplicated effort (say reviewing national movies/TV shows).
Once competition drives most local papers to focus on local intersts and everyone to publish online it will free up a quite substantial amount of money for real reporting. Though actually a lot of what journalists call real reporting is duplicated effort for the sake of status. I mean does it really help the public understand what's going on better to have 40+ journalists at the white house press briefings and who knows how much AV equitment? If they just sent over a single camera crew and agreed on a way to pick questions there would be no harm to the quality of reporting. Much of this is just done because historically that behavior signaled prestige and seriousness in the news industry.
I don't think the newspapers are doing anything wrong. But when technology lets you accomplish the same job with disruptively less total effort (delivering news to the nation) many people are going to lose their jobs and most of the companies in that industry will go out of buisness. I feel sorry for the people with careers in the industry but I think there is every reason to believe that after things settle down there will be just as much investigative reporting and important journalism. There will just be less redundancy and a more efficient use of reporting resources.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
We already have state-run media. They might as well get paid by the government for their services.
[Insert pithy quote here]
News is alive an well, just not in the traditional, dominant media outlets. We have online blogs and weekly newspapers that are in many cases thriving. In my hometown, a tiny rural weekly called "The Altamont Enterprise" has such a demand for local advertising that they've had to add a second section. 15 years ago, it was a 10 page weekly, now its closer to 50.
Why the growth? The local newspaper, the Hearst-owned Albany Times-Union doesn't really provide a service to people in the outlying areas of Albany. Even within the area that the traditional paper claims to serve, the editorial practices of the paper marginalize it as a provider of news that people want to hear. Often, you know when important things are going on because they don't appear in the paper.
When the daily papers die, others will take their place. The only thing missing will be the editorial boards that are typically in cahoots with politicians and business. Keeping them on life support is suppressing the development of new news organizations.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool (or a liar who wants government control).
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Government money = tax money = our money.
This is just an end run around the consumer: Pay us voluntarily or we'll reach into your wallet ourselves. Of course, right now we're reaching into our childrens' childrens' wallets.
Or the communications arm of the democratic party called MSNBC, NBC, GE, or any other organization that stands to gain huge profits from Carbon Taxes. 'k thanks.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I worked for the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Newspaper Agency (DNA) for a number of years. I'd like to share my thoughts on why newspapers companies are failing.
First, in this era where Content is King, the quality of newspaper content has been declining steadily. Most reporting is little more than regurgitated press releases and wire stories. The original writing is largely confined to the sports section. Reporting quality has been discussed to death so I won't go into details. Suffice to say that most of the original reporting in the main section is stories about stories. These secondary stories have very little value.
Second is the rampant cronyism in the executive ranks. At the DNA I watched a seemingly endless parade of senior executives come and go. These people move from one newspaper to another every couple of years. Much ballyhooed when they arrive, they never accomplish anything. At least two senior execs are on their second round at the DNA. These are the people who lead the newspaper industry right to the brink. They do not know what to do now. Most of them are nearing retirement age and I doubt the newspaper industry can recover until they do retire.
Next, ignoring the web was a huge mistake. It might be fatal. As an example, in the spring of 2009, the new President of the DNA (he was President of The Denver Post a few years ago) said something like "We've barely scratched the surface of what we're going to do with the web". The voice in my head was screaming "That's why they're eating our lunch!" So what have they done with the web since then? If you read the preceding paragraph you already know the answer to that question.
Finally, there is the revenue problem. The last twenty years or so have seen an explosion in the amount of available advertising space. Think back a few years, half a dozen local TV stations, a few radio stations, and your local newspaper were the main venues for advertising. Today, advertising is everywhere. It's a simple case of Supply and Demand. The skyrocketing supply drove prices down. Meanwhile, the price of newsprint was also skyrocketing. It's reached the point where newspapers can't compete because their costs are too high.
So what's the solution? I don't know. I do know that government subsidies aren't the answer. Propping up an industry that's killing itself won't help you or me. It will help those old newspaper execs retire comfortably. That is all.
I can't believe the comments that say that government-funded media will be Soviet-style Propaganda machines. Are you people out of your minds? Can anyone here name me one program or reporter more critical of the government than Bill Moyers? His programs get financed by PBS, a government corporation.
In fact, that's exactly what corporations want you to believe, because public funding will be the only thing that frees journalists from the corporate teat. It will effectively shut down the corporate media oligarchy we have today.
Are you all slaves for the corporations or whatever organization pays your salaries? Is that the only lens through which you can see the world?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
>>>When was the last, really hard hitting documentary you saw on American television?
Glenn Beck does a virtual documentary every day. You may think he's an ass or a joke but he is right about one thing: We should be asking questions. What is the government up to, why are they doing it, and who is behind these decisions? What, why, who are the questions we should all be asking.
Rachel Maddow operates a similar program over at MSNBC.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings --
Except when you don't pay that TV license fee (tax), then the BBC calls on the government to round you up and toss you in jail, or extract the funds from your paycheck. So the BBC is not really independent of the government - its *beholden* to the government to enforce its collection of funds.
.
>>>In western countries, public news organisations offer by far the highest quality of reporting
Not in the States. NPR and PBS sucks when it comes to news gathering since it was biased towards a statist regime (more/bigger government). If the reporters at this organizations had their way private ownership would be dead and our homes/car/et cetera would all be government owned. Okay I maybe be exaggerating a little but that is how their reporting leans.
The only good news is that NPR/PBS only costs me about $10 a year in taxation, so it doesn't really "hurt" me that much.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
False. I wish people would stop repeating this oft-stated lie. The ~2000 TV stations plus ~10,000 lowpower/clear air neighborhood stations all pay a lease for their spectrum (called a license fee).
Can you provide some evidence of this? I can find application fees, but not spectrum license fees for the TV stations.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings -- effectively having the right to raise its own taxes.
Yes. And the BBC also is controlled by the government, which regulates content and can fine news organizations for not doing what the government thinks they should do.
In western countries, public news organisations offer by far the highest quality of reporting.
False.
Furthermore, we get that without advertising, and for less total cost.
Also false. There IS advertising -- in the U.S. anyway -- and the total cost is only less depending on how you're looking at it.
Now keep in mind, my favorite news program is NewsHour -- I watch it every day -- which is funded in part from government sources. So it's not like I am saying they do poor reporting.
But my argument is that quality isn't the point -- as there is also outstanding reporting from "corporate media" -- rather, the point is liberty, freedom, trust, rights, responsibility.
Did we just call for state-run media? Quite the opposite.
We seek to renew a rich if largely forgotten legacy of the American free-press tradition, one that speaks directly to today's crisis. The First Amendment necessarily prohibits state censorship, but it does not prevent citizens from using their government to subsidize and spawn independent media.
Indeed, 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. Their initiatives were essential to America's progress.
So, the subsidies were on the infrastructure of free speech, eh?
Fine; how about this: The government subsidizes the Internent, and to satisfy that "first amendment" thing you mention, they also require net neutrality. For the subsidy side, I propose that the United States government establish and fund some sort of entity for assigned names and numbers that can remove the expense of individual corporations having to develop their own contentious and lawsuit-encumbered system for apportioning such things, and a do the same for a name resolution system of some sort, with root nameservers provisioned largely at government expense. Perhaps the government could even go back in time and invent the system itself.
Would that be enough of a subsidy and guarantee of freedom of speech? I think it is a pretty solid foundation at the least.
Now, jerkwad, go forth and take advantage of all that we taxpayers have given ourselves through the creation of the Internet and the continued provision of its core infrastructural metadata. You want to journalize? Good! Be fruitful and journalize. Compete, you putz. And if you think the competition is skewed (and I think it is) perhaps you can start by journalizing about what is wrong with the system, just as the pamphleteers started not by begging for handouts but by invigorating the public furor.
But stop trying to dip in my pocket, you welfare queen.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
They spend the least amount of time pushing sensational stories.
They report the news evenly. They do not stop everything just to get a shot of the Balloon Boy.
They do not manipulate the viewer with false outrage or emotionalism.
They promote dialog (the Doha Debates), not punditry.
They gather stories from all over the world, not just one place, i.e. the USA.
They do hard-hitting indepth interviews with intelligent people (Hardtalk)
I could go on.
Yes the BBC is slanted: towards quality journalism.
There is no comparison between the it and CNN/MSNBC/FOX.
I think many people here defending CNN/Fox/MSNBC (pick your poison) confuse the righteousness of their political beliefs (and therefore the villainy of any news organization that promotes alternative ideas) with the qualities of good journalism in general. Good journalism is what furthers their beliefs. Bad journalism is the other guy.
Hypocritical insults without any substance are not "hard hitting questions".
While the CBC has a mandate to promote Canadian unity, which I feel compromises its reporting on Quebec nationalism, I think nobody in Canada would say the government controls what the CBC reports.
So apart from where it controls what the CBC reports, it doesn't control what the CBC reports.
OK. :-)
I am not saying that the press can't act independently most of the time. I am saying that -- unless you have full transparency, which of course (ironically) doesn't exist in journalism -- you never know if there's something they are hiding or misrepresenting. Maybe 99 percent of the time they are independent, but you never where that one percent is lurking. And this strikes directly at the issue of trust, without which most mainstream media cannot survive.
As the MSM audience bleeds away, the danger to quality journalism at the CBC comes from market forces, not government forces.
For now. As far as you know. And as the MSM audience bleeds away, there's less opportunity to KNOW whether the government has undue influence, because there's fewer other people from other media checking up on the stories.
Whether or not the CBC is independent now or in the past is not the point. It's about trust for the next story, and the next, and the next after that. And trust requires not just a track record but also a reliable foundation, and being paid by the people you're covering is simply not such a foundation.