Journalism Needs Government Help
online.wsj.com
Journalism Needs Government Help
1–10 of 53 posts
Re: Journalism Needs Government Help
#2[deleted]
Re: Journalism Needs Government Help
#3I don't think this is the solution, but not because it will negatively impact the 'objectivity' of the press. The BP example is strong, and as an ex-jounro myself who's been around the newsroom, I know that for the vast majority of writers the memory of a free lunch fades by the time you need to write about it.
I think this will fail in the way that all welfare-dependent industries must inevitably fail. If the business model is such that it requires significant, ongoing government subsidies then it isn't sustainable. You can prop up the US Auto industry, some agricultural sectors, and even the media for only so long. If the end result is an inferior product, what's the point?
Re: Journalism Needs Government Help
#4Information is a public good[1] so there's a standard case for subsidizing it. To preserve choice and competition other folks have proposed giving everybody a $50 voucher that they can give to the news source of their choice. That would guarantee a minimum level of aggregate news production but not specify the particular producers.
Re: Journalism Needs Government Help
#5Why not a nonprofit model instead? NPR has been operating successfully on donations for years! News organizations are already basically not making a profit. By reorganizing and paying back their debts, they can go back to focusing on what matters instead of increasing the bottom line.
Why not take the meager revenues that news organizations are currently earning, deposit them into an endowment and supplement with a huge yearly fund-raising campaign, or a one time large insanely public grant from the federal government. If managed responsibly, something like this could sustain a decently sized news organization for a long time. Especially if we begin to rethink and reorganize how it might be done.
Re: Journalism Needs Government Help
#6It is somewhat shocking to see this editorial in the wall street journal of all places.
I have to say I strongly disagree. Subsidized press will just encourage more conflicts of interest in coverage of politics, will waste taxpayer money, and is unlikely to result in better journalism.
About newspapers losing money, I suspect the main reason for this, and the reason nobody mentions is that newspapers and media companies in general borrowed through the nose to buy out other papers to reduce competition. It is the interest payments for all that borrowing that is causing most problems in the top papers.
Otherwise a paper that gets large viewer ship online should not have any problems funding news gathering.
But nevertheless, it is disturbing to see this in the WSJ. That means it is seriously being pushed. I hope Obama does not support it, there will be no profit for him in it, the right wing papers will use this to once again call him a socialist while still pocketing their subsidy.
Re: Journalism Needs Government Help
#7It is somewhat shocking to see this editorial in the wall street journal of all places. I have to say I strongly disagree. Subsidized press will just encourage more conflicts of interest in coverage of politics, will waste taxpayer money, and is unlikely to result in better journalism. About newspapers losing money, I suspect the main reason for this, and the reason nobody mentions is that newspapers and media compan…
The conflicts of interest for a corporate-owned news outlet are worse than those for a news source that receives some government support.
Re: Journalism Needs Government Help
#8Information is a public good[1] so there's a standard case for subsidizing it. To preserve choice and competition other folks have proposed giving everybody a $50 voucher that they can give to the news source of their choice. That would guarantee a minimum level of aggregate news production but not specify the particular producers. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
That's an interesting idea, but doesn't that mean the government has to regulate what is and is not a real "news source"? Otherwise folks could just spend the $50 on a style magazine or such.
Re: Journalism Needs Government Help
#9Information is a public good[1] so there's a standard case for subsidizing it. To preserve choice and competition other folks have proposed giving everybody a $50 voucher that they can give to the news source of their choice. That would guarantee a minimum level of aggregate news production but not specify the particular producers. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
Haha - the road to economics hell is paved with public goods.
Re: Journalism Needs Government Help
#10Information is a public good[1] so there's a standard case for subsidizing it. To preserve choice and competition other folks have proposed giving everybody a $50 voucher that they can give to the news source of their choice. That would guarantee a minimum level of aggregate news production but not specify the particular producers. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
That would guarantee a minimum level of aggregate news production but not specify the particular producers.
Given how information is dispersed and consumed these days, there are literally thousands of information producers (or at least sources to view that info). In the world of $50 vouchers, there are either thousands of producers competing for pennies if the system is open or a few big producers specified who can receive the vouchers. If it's the former, information producers will probably still be in the sorry state they are today. If it's the latter, I think people might have a problem with the idea of getting their news from an oligarchy of producers.