If you are interested in this, check out Five more reasons government shouldn’t subsidize journalism, responding to another piece by McChesney and Nichols.
This madness has to stop. Intelligent people have to stop thinking that government funding is the solution to the economic challenges facing newspapers.
I love newspapers. I hope they survive and thrive (again) for the rest of my life and beyond. If that delivery system fails, I hope healthy new business and journalism models emerge and stabilize to continue the important roles that newspapers have played for their communities and the nation: informing us of the news and playing the watchdog role on government and other powerful institutions.
My desire to contribute to that healthy future for journalism drove my development of my Blueprint for the Complete Community Connection, a proposal for a prosperous business model to support strong community journalism organizations. Maybe my plan will work, maybe it won’t. Maybe several different models will support journalism in the future.
But government cannot and must not play a significant role in saving newspapers. Leonard Downie Jr. and Michael Schudson suggested government subsidies earlier this month in their report, The Reconstruction of American Journalism, about which I and others have already commented considerably. Now Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols, co-founders of Free Press, have written in the Washington Post that journalism needs government subsidies.
No, no, no, no, no. Never. This is a ridiculous idea and it must stop here. These men are all intelligent and are giving this a lot of thought and they write well, but they are wrong and we cannot let these dangerous ideas start gathering momentum. (I have emailed Nichols and McChesney, inviting their response. Schudson responded twice last week.)
Here’s why journalism doesn’t need and shouldn’t want government subsidies:
- Journalists must be watchdogs and no dog bites the hand that feeds it.
- Journalism is not suffering as much as traditional media companies are. Yes, the massive job cuts in newsrooms are disturbing. But we also are seeing an energetic response from entrepreneurs and philanthropists that is producing a stunning array of new journalism organizations. Anyone who can’t see potential in enterprises such as Politico, ProPublica, West Seattle Blog, MinnPost and The Batavian is deliberately uninformed and should not be taken seriously.
- Postal subsidies from our nation’s early founding (cited as a precedent by Downie/Schudson and McChesney/Nichols) are irrelevant. We had one communication medium then, newspapers. In today’s world of multiple forms of print, broadcast and digital communication, federal subsidies would decide winners and losers, protecting inefficient companies and creating huge obstacles for entrepreneurs. (Update: on this point, see the comments below, as well as Dan Gillmor’s outstanding blog post: The only “journalism” subsidy we need is in bandwidth.
- The federal government can’t afford to bail out newspapers. Have you been paying attention? The feds already bailed out undeserving banks and automobile manufacturers and are trying to figure out how to fix our health-care system. The taxpayers can’t afford to bail out undeserving media companies and journalism can’t afford to be dependent on a debt-burdened government.
- It’s just wrong. If government funds, government will regulate. Freedom of the press has to include freedom for the press to fail.
The Buttry Diary 
Robert W. McChesney has responded by email to this post, referring to the upcoming book he wrote with John Nichols, “The Death and Life of American Journalism”:
I think when our book comes out in January we should take up the exchange then. I will be hugely surprised if you strike the exact same tenor when you encounter the evidence we have for our claims. You may well still disagree with us, but you will do so in a somewhat different manner.
Talk to you in January.
Bob
LikeLike
Steve, I agree with you in principle. I’m highly skeptical of this approach, but don’t dismiss it out of hand.
First, there already are little government subsidies that fly under the radar, such as newspapers being exempt from sales taxes in some states.
Second, I think we need to be open-minded about all approaches that don’t violate core journalistic values.
I think you’re saying that any government subsidy would by definition violate those principles. I’d like to see McChesney’s evidence before weighing in on that.
As always, appreciate your insight.
LikeLike
Ken,
Thanks. I agree that media already have other subsidies (sales tax exemptions, public broadcasting), and I do have problems with those. And I don’t rule out any federal moves to help encourage the search for solutions (perhaps enabling L3C experimentation or allowing non-profit communication orgs to endorse). But I think that direct subsidies, especially at a time of such experimentation and entrepreneurship, and with the express purpose of protecting accountability journalism, is a dangerous area.
Then there’s the whole fact that federal legislation never ends up being what you thought it would be — amendments added in committee or at the last minute, unintended consequences. Let’s avoid that entirely when we’re dealing with an area that’s so entwined with First Amendment freedoms.
I await with interest the McChesney-Nichols book. But I can’t see government, especially government subsidy, being our solution. Even if I agreed with it philosophically, as a taxpayer whose grandchildren will be repaying the debts we’re running up now, I oppose it on those grounds.
LikeLike
Steve, this response actually responds to a number of the issues I raise in my comment below. It’s good to dig into the nuance of this issue a bit. I agree with a number of your concerns, but for me those concerns are exactly why we need to be sure journalists and citizens are part of the debate. With the House, Senate, and FTC already running hearings and workshops, we have to ensure there are strong protections in place and that policies truly serve the public interest.
On our site we outline 5 guidelines any new policy should meet: http://www.savethenews.org/what_we_stand_for
LikeLike
I have enjoyed reading your exchanges with Schudson. After reading your post today, I am prompted to rewrite your opinion to make sure I understand you correctly. Is this your argument?:
“The free market is the only solution to the problems of an uninformed society. Journalism, a key tool in public discourse and problem solving, must be kept a private business under all circumstances. It will never be in the interest of a community to collectively pay or contribute financially to journalism. It must always be a private business run for private profit.
“Anyone who questions the suitability of the market to solve all problems related to self-government is mad. They should cease all discussions immediately. And all those countries where people still read newspapers and are relatively well-informed? Well, the government involvement has tainted them. It can’t be possible for journalists in Sweden, the UK, Germany to be better off because they receive some public monies. Our system is the only one worth considering. There are no weaknesses in the market. It meets every need. We should not even be having this conversation!”
Is this an accurate reflection of your position?
My own sense is that we would to well to think about a public “commons” in relation to journalism (see recent Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom’s work on this subject as an example). When it comes to public resources we share in common, the hypercapitalism that stands in for today’s market has some serious deficiencies. A combination of norms, education and government action could lessen these considerably, even on an interim basis, as Schudson points out.
To assume that “government action” means the government will suddenly pour scarce cash into dying newspaper companies in exchange for favorable coverage is ludicrous. There are many, many tools available for public action. Isn’t it worth at least exploring them?
LikeLike
Donica,
I do not agree with your restatement of my position. I am much more knowledgeable about our government and our media than about how the media have evolved in other countries. But I have visited with journalists in other nations and hosted many visiting journalists from other nations (including those you cited) and have heard again and again their envy of our press freedom. To think that subsidy would not bring any accompanying regulation is to live in fantasyland. Can you imagine the New York Times and Washington Post publishing the Pentagon Papers if their annual appropriations were pending before Congress at the time?
As noted above, I do think consideration of enabling L3C media organizations or different non-profit structures has some merit. But I also believe the free market is stimulating some exciting new entrepreneurial projects. And I am sure that the government subsidies everyone is talking about would favor failing legacy organizations more than they would help innovative startups.
I agree with my former API boss, Drew Davis, who said the best guarantee of a free press is a profitable press.
LikeLike
Steve,
Thanks for the reply. I think most everyone would agree that a “profitable press” has advantages, even though profitable news companies have enormous conflicts of interest which journalists have managed to deal with (more or less successfully) for a long time. The question now is: What to do when we don’t have a profitable press?
The consequences of a failure of journalism could be enormous. Given the public interest in maintaining a strong, free press in this country, considering governmental policies that affect it doesn’t seem like madness.
So, I am also interested to read what McChesney and Nichols come up with. Thanks for voicing what I know is a common reaction and for considering the possibility that there might be other possibilities.
LikeLike
Steve,
Can we begin by admitting that suggesting a role for policy in the future of journalism is not “madness.” I agree that we have got to be vigilant and careful about any government involvement, but I do see a role.
I believe in journalists and their commitment to independence, and I believe that strong protections can be put in place between journalism and the funding stream. The same way firewalls were built between editorial and advertising in the past. You and I may have to agree to disagree on that, since you believe journalists will be quick to follow the money and give up on being watchdogs.
I agree with you that “journalism is not suffering as much as traditional media companies are.” But as Downie and Schudson and the Knight report make amply clear, the exciting new developments in journalism are no where near putting enough journalists back on the streets to meet the information needs of our communities. We should look at policies that can help these new enterprises gain a foothold (broadband deployment, tax changes, net neutrality, etc…), while we also look at immediate ways to put journalists back to work.
Postal subsidies are not irrelevant, they are a model. No one said we should duplicate them but we should have an open discussing about what today’s “postal subsidies” might be – again I point to broadband deployment as one example, though there are others.
You say, “The federal government can’t afford to bail out newspapers.” (Note: all these authors have stated clearly they don’t support bailouts of old media giants – so your use of “bail out newspapers” seems like a misrepresentation). We rely on our government for issues like health, safety, education, etc… Don’t we need a strong communications system for any of those other pieces to function properly? Can the government – or us local citizens – afford not to have a strong free press?
Maybe we need subsidies. Maybe we need policy changes. None of these things are silver bullets, and none are the only change we need. It’s all just part of the equation. But if we reject these ideas outright then the only people who will have a say in the policy decisions happening in DC will be lobbyists. What we need is an open discussion with journalists, policymakers and citizens to all of these concerns can be raised and creative solutions can be developed. That won’t happen unless we are willing to have the discussion.
(full disclosure: I run SaveTheNews.org at Free Press.)
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment, Josh.
We can agree that government policy might have a role in encouraging some experimentation in new models. I am all for considering broadband deployment, net neutrality and other possibilities I have mentioned above (please note, I am open to consideration of them but haven’t studied them enough to favor or oppose). I enter those discussions with some skepticism and caution.
But both Downie/Schudson and McChesney/Nichols were specifically talking about government subsidies. And I stand by my statement that that would be madness. I say it as a journalist, as a news consumer and as a taxpayer.
As for postal subsidies, here are the conditions on which they started: A fledgling nation, with a new postal system and a fledgling free press (the only news medium other than word of mouth) decided that newspapers would get a subsidy in the postal system. It is breathtakingly naïve to think that is at all relevant to the pork barrel politics (and yes, absolutely, selection of winners and losers) that would accompany subsidies for media today.
As for the question of bailouts. Yes, I know these writers denied they were seeking a bailout. But you know, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck …
I do agree completely with you that we cannot afford not to have a strong free press. And journalism with its hand out to the government will not be a free press.
LikeLike
OK, I stand corrected. The postal subsidy is not irrelevant, but McChesney/Nichols have taken it in an irrelevant direction. Dan Gillmor eloquently and correctly notes a clear parallel between postal subsidies and federal subsidies for expanding access to broadband. I completely agree:
http://mediactive.com/2009/10/30/the-only-journalism-subsidy-we-need-is-in-bandwidth/
LikeLike
Steve,
I usually love your posts and often retweet them. However as an Australian journalist and journalism educator, I am always distressed by the failures of US debates about government subsidies and the media. Having grown up with the completely government funded Oz ABC which produces the very best watchdog journalism and is a leading real digital innovator in the Australian news eco system I am flabbergasted by US commentators’ refusal to entertain government subsidy as a valid model.
It is a FACT that it works very well in Australia and Britain. Both ABC and BBC are highly respected, innovative, news organisations that constantly do watchdog journalism of all sorts including many stories that are critical of the government.
I can understand an argument that says we have to think about checks and balances in a government subsidised system. I can understand an argument that says I don’t think this is the best system. I even understand your argument about affordability (although governments accumulate debt to fund all sorts of common goods so why draw the line here). What I don’t understand is the hyperbole that people like you and Jeff Jarvis invest in attacking the very idea.
I would say this is an extremely US centric position and the experience of many other Western democracies simply negates your key argument about media freedom. The reality is that the BBC and the ABC are every bit as strong, courageous, innovative and important as the NYT and WaPo and a hell of a lot better than most mid sized commercial metros anywhere here or in the US.
I would say: “This madness has to stop. Intelligent people have to stop thinking that government funding can never be part of the solution to the economic challenges facing newspapers.”
Not saying whole deal. Just saying there is evidence that it can work so don’t dismiss it out of hand. Intelligent people don’t do that.
LikeLike
Marcus, thanks for your thoughtful response. Yes, this is a US-centric view because we’re talking about this happening in the United States. I respect the work and journalistic integrity of BBC and Oz ABC (and for that matter, NPR and PBS here in the United States). Broadcasting has always had a government role because of the nature of the delivery system and the need to regulate signals. Here and in other nations, broadcasting developed differently than newspapers.
I also should add that part of my opposition to government subsidies for American newspapers is rooted in my belief that our failure to innovate should not be rewarded with subsidies that give us unfair advantages over the entrepreneurs who are truly seizing the opportunities of digital journalism.
But yes, I also believe passionately that the freedom of the press enshrined in our First Amendment includes the freedom to fail and requires independence from government. There is a world of difference between government subsidy for a broadcasting network and government subsidy for a delivery system (such as postal subsidies for newspapers or subsidies to extend broadband throughout the country) and government subsidy for the profit lines and operations of an industry that is protected in the Constitution because of the value of its independent voice.
The First Amendment protection is another reason this is a US-centric view. Another reason is that any government regulation would take place in an environment of highly charged partisan politics and heavy media scrutiny from both ends of the political spectrum. Please remember, too, that even our independent press failed miserably (excepting Knight Ridder, may it rest in peace) in our watchdog role prior to the war in Iraq. To expect better watchdog reporting from a press dependent on government handouts is naïve.
Independence from government used to be a core value of American journalists and American news organizations. The current willingness to throw that over exposes a new core value of lack of responsibility. American news organizations can and should overhaul and update their business models for the digital age. Or they should get out of the way and let the innovators and entrepreneurs who are upholding our values of independence carry us into the future.
I blogged about independence last night from Siberia:
https://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/a-historic-front-page-with-the-lead-story-missing/
LikeLike
Thanks for taking the time to reply back Steve. I appreciate that it is obviously important to take US history and culture into account. But to me that should not mean a failure to take into account the lessons from other cultures which could help. Which to me would be the difference between a US-centered and a US-centric debate.
I can certainly see that partisan culture wars can indeed be a problem for government funded media. Various groups have used charges of “bias” to hamper the work of the ABC and tie them up in endless inquiries. But the monkey of objectivity/bias sits on all our backs and can turn into a scratching monster at any point for both commercially funded and government funded orgs.
I also appreciate and admire the strong US 1st amendment tradition but I am sure you will admit that although it flowered in a US context it arose from a strong Anglo-European tradition. So the ABC and BBC operate within this essential similar tradition.
Your reference to the historic reasons behind the differences in subsidising/regulating broadcast versus print is of course sound, however in the current context this is not a very helpful. Firstly it has no relevance to your basic press freedom argument: if gov subsidies were going to hamper free reporting it would be true no matter what the medium. The reality is that with the ABC and BBC it does not necessarily interfere, so it would not necessarily interfere in other mediums. More importantly the future for all media organisations, as I am sure you would agree, is no longer in medium silos so in this sense I agree that a specific government subsidy to allow for the continuation of printing news on dead tress is not a smart idea. However that is not the same as saying that some government funding to a multiple platform organistations (which may or may not include some print) is not an idea worth considering. The model pioneered by the BBC and ABC, which are probably the world’s premier multimedia organisations – they work extensively across multiple radio, TV web channels and include some forays into print – MUST be looked at as one possible model for future journalism.
Murdoch is in fact very angry with the BCC and ABC that they are providing such good digital content and thus will interfere dramatically with his paywall plans. But the reality is that they have addressed the issues of digital innovation and his media organisations have not. They were both operating within the same context and the same timelines, the government funded groups have stepped up and the commercial ones have not. Murdoch and others had the opportunity and better resources to beat them at this. So it is not a question of government based innovation hampering commercial innovation. Quite the opposite they raised the bar and have him trying to figure out how to follow.
I certainly agree with you about the appalling innovation track record of the media industry and don’t believe that this failure ought be rewarded. So I am not for a “bail-out” in this sense. Yes our belief in media freedom must include a freedom to fail. But I think that the US romantic commitment to entrepreneurial solutions is also misplaced. While there are some obvious stars I see very little evidence of many NEW purely commercial, entrepreneurial solutions that are producing original journalism and have a strong watch dog journalism focus. Most of the good models I am aware of have foundation funding. But I think this is where there has to be some really imaginative thought that goes beyond current national models – we can certainly learn from the US about the importance of philanthropic support of new media models while I believe the US should take into account the usefulness in other eco systems of government funding.
This current “crisis” is not just a funding/subsidy/advertising problem there are a whole range of extremely complex issues about the changing nature of news delivery, audience attention, social engagement, evolving platforms, new identities, new notions of news etc etc. We obviously need a range of “laboratories” to explore many different options as this complex future evolves. Some of these could be government funded start-ups, some could be commercial, some could be foundation funded, others could evolve from within the University sector or the non-profit sector, others will be driven by keen amazing individuals and communities. Nothing should be ruled out. There is no single problem and there can be not single solution. This is far too important to leave any basket eggless.
LikeLike
Thanks, Marcus. You state your case well. While we disagree on this one point, I can see that we are both pushing for the media maintain a strong watchdog role while finding a thriving model for the digital age.
I agree entirely that we cannot maintain the medium silos of the past. In fact, the push for subsidies in the US is, in my view, an effort to maintain the newspaper silo as much as possible.
I am pleased to see the growth of philanthropy-supported journalism (subsidized through tax breaks, but I can live with that) and think that projects like ProPublica and California Watch are likely to be part of a healthy watchdog future.
While the government-supported journalism operations in the UK and Australia are indeed leaders in innovation, to their credit, a government subsidy with roots in saving the failing organizations (and, no doubt, cutting out the entrepreneurial ones) seems wrongly focused to me, beyond the independence principle I am defending.
I hope you are right, because some powerful forces are trying mightily to get government help here and our government does not have a good track record of recognizing when it cannot afford to fund a bad policy.
LikeLike
[…] not survive, but part of freedom of the press is freedom to fail. I won’t repeat my previous arguments against government subsidies for journalism. But I’m glad to be here in Siberia, celebrating […]
LikeLike
[…] Posts Curriculum advice for journalism schoolsLos Angeles Times shows its fear of social mediaFive reasons government shouldn't subsidize journalismNews organizations need mobile-first strategyC3 overview for Siberian journalists Search […]
LikeLike
[…] takes on whether government should subsidize journalism (it […]
LikeLike
[…] too shrill a tone in calling the push for government subsidies “madness” when I wrote Five reasons government shouldn’t subsidize journalism in October, responding to an earlier piece by McChesney and Nichols in the Washington […]
LikeLike
[…] about articles McChesney and Nichols wrote in advance of the publication of their book. When I responded critically to an October piece they wrote for the Washington Post, I emailed them inviting a response. […]
LikeLike
[…] I will note that the report betrayed a strong bias by uncritically parroting extensively from the report by Len Downie and Michael Schudson and the book by Robert McChesney and John Nichols, both of which […]
LikeLike
[…] Five reasons government shouldn’t subsidize journalism […]
LikeLike