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following the ongoing struggles of the print media, watching as some publications have died off and others have held to outdated principles and decried the influence of the internet.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."

Comments

good description

[the_Bionic_lemming]

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.

Re:good description

[Znork]

They have run journalism into the ground...

Without a doubt.

attacking an administration simply to raise advertising funding

I have nothing against attacks on administrations, but what passes for such today is largely irrelevant misdirection. Journalists with any significant insight into the subjects reported about, necessary to avoid being just a spokespuppet, are rare. Which is largely why professional 'reporters' are losing out to people with knowledge about the subject matter but with only amateurish reporting skills. If the journalist is merely a conduit, well, then frankly a blog page can do that.

But neither is really relevant. The real problem for the journalism business is there's simply too much of it. Barring the prospects of consumers suddenly getting vast amounts of new free time, it simply needs to be massively downsized. In the modern world we don't need 100 reporters at a White House press conference. The job can be done by three or four, and then aggregated and translated. We don't need one reporter per olympic sportsman. Consumers can only read that much in a day, and when output is globally available, there isn't enough time in the world to consume even a miniscule fraction of it.

Once far more of the business is dead and gone, then the remaining outlets will get many more eyeballs and much better advertising rates. Redundant work will have been eliminated, and in a functioning economy we'd all have gotten a little bit more free time as less actual work needs to be done. In this one we'll instead get a slight tax raise and get forced to subsidize work that has no demand and shouldn't be done.

Re:good description

[Attila Dimedici]

I stopped reading the newspaper before I started reading news online. I stopped reading the newspaper because every article contained some political commentary whether there was any relationship between the subject of the story and the political comment.

Re:good description

[Philip K Dickhead]

250 years ago, there were no "newspapers". They were technologically impossible, and demographically unreadable.

We had broadsheets for the limited press-runs we were capable of. And for the limited, literate population of large cities. These were pasted as bills, and informally circulated in the leaf.

In the time of the American and French revolutions, the day belonged to the pamphleteer. His screeds, fulminations and genuine insights were the fuel for popular discourses. When the American Constitution enshrined a freedom for the press in basic law, it was the pamphleteer and "almanack" editor for whom this waas a guarantee. You may recognize the pamphleteer.

Today we call him "the blogger".

Newspapers grew, as a 19th century phenomenon for the obvious reasons we implied, as literate middle-classes expanded in the cities, with money to spend. Industrial papermaking and printing replaced paper-hanging and letter-press, and it became possible to turn the massive engines of industry to something as trivial as glorified broadsheets, rather than simply the production of necessities. In fact, investment capital seeking returns, demanded finding new avenues for industrialization. The newspaper was born.

Now that the demands and opportunities of 19th century central industrialization have passed from the page of history, why should the newspaper magically be granted an existence, into perpetuity? They did not found our societies, and were instrumental mostly in our worst excesses and prejudices, not in promoting our best values and opportunities.

If they still make buggy-whips, let their time fade away.

Re:good description

[commodore64_love]

NPR just recently covered this issue. NPR came-down on the "government funding is a good idea" viewpoint. Gee what a surprise. A partially government-funded organization that thinks more government funding is great! They have inadvertently demonstrated how Uncle Sam dollars can skew viewpoints - naturally NPR is in favor of *more* Uncle Sam programs, because "he" is their sugar daddy. ;-)

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/10/30/03
Take For Granted
October 30, 2009

Hurray for the "free" press!

[cheddarlump]

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

Re:Hurray for the "free" press!

[pudge]

They hasten to add, "Did we just call for state-run media? Quite the opposite."

No, that is precisely what they called for.

Whoever holds the purse strings is in control.

The government might GRANT control, day to day, to the private people, but they can exert control whenever they wish to.

And you're exactly right cheddarlump ... the press cannot be beholden to the government. It's a travesty. Just like "shield laws," where the press are beholden to the government to offer them special privileges, which, being legislative and particular to the people who have them, can be revoked.

The way to an actual free press is to for government to give every citizen the same rights, and to stay completely out of the system.

The real story here is that they want to save their own jobs, because they cannot figure out how to save them any other way. This isn't about The Press. If it were, they'd not have been doing such a terrible job (even before the Web came around).

I mean come on ... look at the fricking New York Times. In the wake of Jayson Blair, they promised to rein in anonymous sources. They didn't. As a result, no one trusts the Times anymore, and no one should.

No one trusts the "blogs" either, but at least you don't pay for those.

Re:Hurray for the "free" press!

[Glock27]

And you're exactly right cheddarlump ... the press cannot be beholden to the government. It's a travesty. Just like "shield laws," where the press are beholden to the government to offer them special privileges, which, being legislative and particular to the people who have them, can be revoked.

The total irony here is many media outlets are being increasingly ignored over their fawning, lapdog approach to 0bama - without even a financial benefit.

They're really just asking to be paid for their efforts.

Wha?

[jav1231]

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?

corporate welfare

[el_gato_borracho]

I'm sure the constant threat of their government funding being cut would NEVER affect their critical coverage of said government.

Re:corporate welfare

[khallow]

And the presence of government funding would provide a convenient cutoff point for who is considered a journalist and who isn't. If you're not receiving the government subsidy, then you're not a real journalist and hence, aren't allowed in the press-only areas or to receive the other privileges extended to real journalists.

Oh, they'll criticize the government all right.

[jcr]

The thing is, the criticism they'll hand out will be like the BBC, bitching about how the government isn't doing enough.

-jcr

Re:Oh, they'll criticize the government all right.

[jcr]

The BBC is quite critical of the government doing the wrong thing

Correction: the BBC is critical of the government doing what the BBC believes is the wrong thing. You'll never see the BBC calling for a reduction in government power.

-jcr

Subsidize paper chauvinism now!

[SlappyBastard]

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.

Hmmm

[demonlapin]

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.

Re:Hmmm

[jadavis]

but because [FNC] doesn't really care about actual truth

News outlets should also be judged by the stories they run that other news outlets ignore, like corruption in Acorn, Van Jones, etc.

If your news outlets aren't reporting these things, maybe you should include FNC so that you get all of the relevant information? I'm sure if FNC gets anything wrong, it will be debunked by various FNC critics, so you won't be misinformed.

The BBC is a good example

Everyone uses the BBC as a good example. But we're afraid of the bad examples.

There Is No News Crisis

[logicnazi]

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.