Additional menu

Windsor Digital

Handmade digital strategy from the heartland.

Let’s put the government in charge of journalism!

By

Writing in The Mediashift Idea Lab on pbs.org, David Sasaki wins the award for the longest argument yet in favor of government funding of the failing journalism business.

I try not to get into outright arguments here, but this seems to me to be a really, really bad idea. You can’t micro-manage every single industry with bailouts and new taxes to support them. If US automakers, for instance, can’t build cars that people want, then they should contract, combine or even, in the most extreme outcome, disappear. We won’t have any shortage of vehicles, as better-run companies slip in to fill the void. That’s cold, true, but that’s also the marketplace in action.

Same goes for journalism. If newspapers have created the perfect storm of outdated content and revenue models at the very moment when user consumption patterns are changing radically, then that’s a bright neon sign that it’s time to change. Not that it’s time to find a deep-pocketed government benefactor to allow things to operate as they always have.

But don’t tell that to David Sasaki. He’s thinking about the National Journalism Foundation, funded by the federal government. Which, as we all know, is really you and me:

The National Journalism Foundation would essentially serve as a re-invented Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Annual funding should increase from $200 million to $3 billion. (One percent of the total cost of the Iraq War; four percent of the federal bank bailout.) Similar to the NSF, the National Journalism Foundation would regularly award grants to individuals, organizations, and institutions that propose projects which serve to better inform the American public about their communities, government, nation, and the rest of the world. PBS and NPR would, of course, continue to receive funding, but other organizations and projects like EveryBlock and FiveThirtyEight.com, which provide important information to the public but don’t attract advertising revenue, would also be considered for funding.

As described, it sounds sort of enticing. Let’s fund the the cool startups. Let’s tax those “telecommunications giants” (who will, no doubt, totally absorb these new taxes out of the kindness of their bleeding hearts) and give the money away to a super-sized Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Yes, let’s. And Popsicles for everyone.

Or, publishers could look down the long-barrel of changing realities and change in ways that will allow them to continue in the business of informing people while still making a profit. But they surely won‘t do that if the Gravy Train is about to pull into town, just like GM won’t change if it’s guaranteed a future through taxpayer bailouts.

And what’s really the worst thing about this? Live for 5-10 years under such a system, and the bulk of the press will be dependent on the government for funding, essentially defanging an already gap-toothed watchdog.

Sorry, I’m not buying it. Journalism is currently screwed, but that’s a good thing. It’s finally forcing some real change. Let’s not screw that up by taking away the only incentive they have to change: fear.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Great post, Tim. The big issue I've had with bailing out all these businesses is that it doesn't teach them anything moving forward. It doesn't make anyone take responsibility for their actions. It doesn't force anyone to try something new or make hard decisions. It doesn't force people to find a real way to fix anything because the temporary band-aid is easier. We don't need more government interference. We need less. This is especially true for journalism and newspapers. We are supposed to be government watchdogs. We shouldn't be in bed with the government relying on the next hand out. Things are bad now, but it can always get worse.

  2. “Congressman, I'd like to ask you about your six secretaries who can't type, giggle incessantly, show up at the office only on payday, and all seem to have been frequent clients of Dr. Ralph's House of Silicone.”

    “Oh, and by the way – thanks for voting to reup the funding for the Corporation for Public Journalism!”

    Our relationship with the government should be very straightforward: Politely adversarial.

  3. readers grumble over a nickle increase. imagine how PO'ed they'd be about their taxes supporting the news biz!

  4. Hi Tim, thanks for continuing the conversation. First, let me clarify, as I did on Kirk's blog, that I was being tongue in cheek when suggesting a 'government bailout' of the journalism industry. I am certainly not advocating for a one-time dump of money in order to fix what is clearly a broken system. But I do think that, unless private philanthropy steps in big, we're eventually going to want federal money to fund the sort of news and information (international coverage, for example) that had previously been subsidized by the revenue generated from classified ads and advertising.

    I completely agree with the ideal of tearing down the unnecessary marketplace between writer and reader. I also support ideas like Spot.us, but crowdfunding of news (if it works) carries its own risks. After all, those who are most likely to fund a story about, say, the safety of San Francisco's water, will probably have a biased interest in how the story is reported. (Also, that was one of the very first stories to get pitched on Spot.us, even before it went public, and it has yet to attract enough money to be reported.

    Nor has the tip jar model worked. And my friends who write for Slate.com – hardly the beacon of serious journalism – are sometimes paid only $100 a week.

    My colleague Ethan Zuckerman has done a good job listing all the possible funding models for what he calls “difficult journalism” – those stories we know we should read, but sometimes have to convince ourselves to invest the time to do so.

    I, too, think it's OK if the empire of journalism collapses, but meanwhile there are really cool projects taking shape (like the ones I mentioned, but also the one I work on, Global Voices) which should be made sustainable because they offer an important public service. Sort of like scientific research, highways, mailmen, and lifeguards.

  6. Hi Tim, thanks for continuing the conversation. First, let me clarify, as I did on Kirk's blog, that I was being tongue in cheek when suggesting a 'government bailout' of the journalism industry. I am certainly not advocating for a one-time dump of money in order to fix what is clearly a broken system. But I do think that, unless private philanthropy steps in big, we're eventually going to want federal money to fund the sort of news and information (international coverage, for example) that had previously been subsidized by the revenue generated from classified ads and advertising.

    I completely agree with the ideal of tearing down the unnecessary marketplace between writer and reader. I also support ideas like Spot.us, but crowdfunding of news (if it works) carries its own risks. After all, those who are most likely to fund a story about, say, the safety of San Francisco's water, will probably have a biased interest in how the story is reported. (Also, that was one of the very first stories to get pitched on Spot.us, even before it went public, and it has yet to attract enough money to be reported.

    Nor has the tip jar model worked. And my friends who write for Slate.com – hardly the beacon of serious journalism – are sometimes paid only $100 a week.

    My colleague Ethan Zuckerman has done a good job listing all the possible funding models for what he calls “difficult journalism” – those stories we know we should read, but sometimes have to convince ourselves to invest the time to do so.

    I, too, think it's OK if the empire of journalism collapses, but meanwhile there are really cool projects taking shape (like the ones I mentioned, but also the one I work on, Global Voices) which should be made sustainable because they offer an important public service. Sort of like scientific research, highways, mailmen, and lifeguards.

  8. Hi Tim, thanks for continuing the conversation. First, let me clarify, as I did on Kirk's blog, that I was being tongue in cheek when suggesting a 'government bailout' of the journalism industry. I am certainly not advocating for a one-time dump of money in order to fix what is clearly a broken system. But I do think that, unless private philanthropy steps in big, we're eventually going to want federal money to fund the sort of news and information (international coverage, for example) that had previously been subsidized by the revenue generated from classified ads and advertising.

    I completely agree with the ideal of tearing down the unnecessary marketplace between writer and reader. I also support ideas like Spot.us, but crowdfunding of news (if it works) carries its own risks. After all, those who are most likely to fund a story about, say, the safety of San Francisco's water, will probably have a biased interest in how the story is reported. (Also, that was one of the very first stories to get pitched on Spot.us, even before it went public, and it has yet to attract enough money to be reported.

    Nor has the tip jar model worked. And my friends who write for Slate.com – hardly the beacon of serious journalism – are sometimes paid only $100 a week.

    My colleague Ethan Zuckerman has done a good job listing all the possible funding models for what he calls “difficult journalism” – those stories we know we should read, but sometimes have to convince ourselves to invest the time to do so.

    I, too, think it's OK if the empire of journalism collapses, but meanwhile there are really cool projects taking shape (like the ones I mentioned, but also the one I work on, Global Voices) which should be made sustainable because they offer an important public service. Sort of like scientific research, highways, mailmen, and lifeguards.