Interestingly, when the US redesigned West-German politics after WWII, publicly funded journalism played a central role. Comparing the quality of German and American journalism today could turn up some good arguments supporting your case.
The quality of German journalism? Like Bild Zeitung? I find German journalism on a free fall, as revealed with their coverage of what the ICJ is qualifying as genocide.
How about this? Suppose labor unions, progressive worker co-ops, and like-minded civic groups joined forces, just like the good ol days when labor unions ran their own newspapers, because they understood that freedom of the press cannot be only for those who own the presses, given the inordinate power they wield? Something that far right billionaires understand all too well today, much to our woe.
It sounds nice but one point I'm making here is that no matter who launches a new publication or how righteous it is it will still be subjected to the same hopeless economic forces, which is why we need a larger scale solution.
No doubt you're right. It's for the same reason that you can't expect co-ops and/or labor unions to magically "save us from capitalism". But you need things like "community wealth building", "co-determination", and "first right of refusal" to let the workers buy out their bosses when the latter decide to retire and wind up their business affairs, all financed publicly. (Something that Bernie advocates, btw.)
Oh, on another side note, the latter, a publicly financed "first right of refusal" was promoted by the Swedish Social Democrats in the 1970s as a part of their long run vision for a fully post capitalism, socialist society. Jacobinmag had a great issue on the subject. Sadly, they got derailed by the rise of the Reagan-Thatcher tide of neoliberal revanchism.
Given the almost complete chokehold on politics at the national level currently exerted by big capitalists (regardless of whether they like to call themselves "woke" or "anti-woke"), we should really be talking more about how to fund local journalism through local projects of municipal and state governments. I am thinking about the kinds of funds we have raised here in Portland, Oregon, via assessments like our Portland Clean Energy Fund, and even our long-standing "Arts Tax" (the latter of which is fairly criticized for its regressive nature).
Above all, we have to build a solid ideological foundation for economic democracy by explaining that we should no more leave the fate of economic equality to the tender mercies of economic Brownian motion, aka "the free market", than we should privatize the running of our elections and put Boeing Corporation and Chase Manhattan Bank in charge of each of our state's Secretary of State offices. (Of course, due to money in politics and our current system of "wealth primaries" and /dialing for dollars", the latter is effectively exactly what has happened in all but name.)
This is an approach that countries other than the US have had for decades. I live in Canada, and the CBC gets most of its funding from the federal government (it’s also big enough across television, radio and internet to get a piece of the shrinking ad market, but public funding is its main support).
As a result, CBC News is one of the only Canadian outlets still doing investigative journalism and breaking major stories, even as media conglomerates like Postmedia vacuum up local papers and strip them for parts.
Of course, Pierre Poilievre, the current leader of the Conservative party (and frontrunner for Prime Minister in the next Parliament) wants to strip that funding and kill CBC stone dead. So this is about to become a major fight in Canada too.
Canada is currently trying to force the tech companies to share their ad revenue with news orgs that get clicks off their sites, but Meta at least has responded by just censoring news for Canadians on FB and Instagram. They're gambling that most people won't notice or care and that seems to be working for them fine
Love to see city pols who gleefully defund schools turn around when the teachers strike to piously proclaim how "Their priority is getting the kids back to school so they dont fall behind".
Fucker, you are the ones who closed down all the local buildings and crammed them into a big suburban complex that despite being brand new has them crammed 30 to a room with out wven chalk unless the teacher goes out of their own pocket!
There is a third way: public sustained pressure on the tech companies to collaborate more extensively in the creation of the base data and funding that news needs. AI could also help fill this gap. This takes away right wing knee jerk reactions but also put the emphasis where you correctly assign - tech eating the seed corn.
Even Silicon Valley elites must eventually admit that destroying the public square can erode the civic American society they claim to cherish.
But the public pressure is so far non-existent. Even pseudo-populists like the Repub MO senators smell mileage to be gained out of pillorying them. Let’s put that shame to good use— make news funding and base data collection part of the future as much as internet infrastructure.
Reading recent good books about Facebook (e.g. An Ugly Truth by Frenkel and Kang) or Maria Ressa’s interviews about how 90+ of news in many countries comes from Facebook reveals the public consequences of the business model. They are ripe for this pressure.
If you haven't checked out the MN Legacy Amendment, it's one model for how this can work. Dedicated tax revenue established through a ballot initiative to fund projects and programs oriented toward creating a better future. You can read about it here: https://www.legacy.mn.gov/about-funds
The latest episode of the Tech Won't Save Us podcast is a nice companion to this, the episode is "What's Really Killing the News Media? w/Victor Pickard".
Public funding can mean not just taxation, but funding by a community through donations. A newspaper supported by its community, i.e. a nonprofit newspaper, reflects the public interest directly. And a nonprofit newspaper is protected by the rules of nonprofit governance. Everyone in town has a strong interest in making sure their newspaper serves the community.
It is a nice idea but the fact that this sort of publication is not already flourishing in communities across the country tells you how hard the actual economics of this would be.
Except that it’s only been in the past few years that people have started to realize how urgent the situation is. The Institute for nonprofit news is a good place to look. There are a number of new hyper local papers in New England that are nonprofit.
Love the idea of having tech companies taxed to keep local print journalism alive. My local paper (Reno, NV) is barely hanging on. I kept my subscription for an extra couple of years even if there wasn’t any stimulating content. I struggled over canceling it for months. Finally, I decided I just didn’t have enough packages that needed the stuffing. 💔
Well done on this, Hamilton. I'm a big believer in stepping out of a crisis to view it from a distance and, even if that means coming up with what can at first sight appear to be madcap ideas, the solutions that can attract dismissive guffaws from established stakeholders can give cause to rethink a whole sector's structure. This is certainly something to be pursued.
My initial thought was the police. They are enforcers of the law regardless of who has broken it. And yet it is trite to observe that the police and public prosecutors, even the judiciary, are not fully impartial. The journalism profession is one of our checks and balances, a guarantee against outlandish behaviour: one might almost view them as a step up from the conscientious citizen who reports criminal activity:
- victim of misconduct
- witness of misconduct
- whistleblower
- reporter/investigator of misconduct
- the police
- prosecution
- judiciary
- legislature.
Hence, the reporter/investigator of misconduct is a link in a chain of offsets that seek to balance excesses of prerogative or even abuse of power and forms an essential lynchpin between the general public who are victims or witnesses of misconduct, plus those moved to call it out, and the instances that are empowered by the state to take action to prevent or prosecute misconduct. If it is possible to structure the bottom four instances such as to be resilient to abuses of power and manipulation, then it should be possible to ensure that state-funded journalists likewise remain immune from pressure and duress. However, the safeguards to prevent the paymaster from calling the reporter's tune would need to be extremely craftily designed.
In the 1840s in Britain, one of the demands of the Chartist movement was annual parliamentary elections, which, it was argued offered the best check to bribery and intimidation, since no purse could buy a constituency under a system of universal male suffrage every twelve months. In effect the prospect of bribing sufficient members of parliament every year was seen as a bar to members of parliament being susceptible to bribery. This demand is the only one the Chartists failed in, for cost reasons (their other demands were unsuccessful but got implemented anyway over time). The Chartists had an incomplete understanding of how lobbying worked; they viewed the prime danger of weighted interests lying in the nature of the man elected to parliament himself.
Any central government funding of journalism could very quickly turn into the Russian model, and it would take only a mild deviation from the true and honest path to bring such journalism within state-controlled, as opposed to state-funded, hands. The speed with which Gazprom took over the mainstream media outlets in Russia in the 1990s shows the avid nature with which media control was viewed as a key to control of the people in the Russian Federation. I just wonder what safeguards could be incorporated to prevent such a bastardisation of a wholesome idea in the liberal west.
Someone mentions the German model: that could be fruitful pickings, looking at just how the eminently neutral ARD (mostly fact-based, with expressly identified "comment" insertions in its TV news reporting) and ZDF, whose bulletins tend to be longer, comment-loaded (much more than ARD) but, after seeing them for several decades now - eminently fair, in my fair-minded mind, that is (https://www.zdf.de).
"Working at the (Cincinnati) Post was like dining on the Titanic. The food was good, but you had to decide when you'd eaten enough and it was time to head for the lifeboat." Larry Nager
Publicly-funded journalism fits right in there. And yes, all the above are funded by largely different means, but that is in part because we have several different levels of government. Several angles to work.
Yes!
Tax ‘em. Break up the tech companies, too!
Interestingly, when the US redesigned West-German politics after WWII, publicly funded journalism played a central role. Comparing the quality of German and American journalism today could turn up some good arguments supporting your case.
The quality of German journalism? Like Bild Zeitung? I find German journalism on a free fall, as revealed with their coverage of what the ICJ is qualifying as genocide.
You can always pick and choose. Both here and in Germany. That was not my question.
The fact that you can pick and choose does not improve the quality of journalism in Germany or any where else.
?
Victor Pickard was just making exactly the same point in an article for ScheerPost (https://scheerpost.com/2024/02/04/why-the-market-not-to-mention-the-billionaires-cannot-save-journalism/ ).
How about this? Suppose labor unions, progressive worker co-ops, and like-minded civic groups joined forces, just like the good ol days when labor unions ran their own newspapers, because they understood that freedom of the press cannot be only for those who own the presses, given the inordinate power they wield? Something that far right billionaires understand all too well today, much to our woe.
It sounds nice but one point I'm making here is that no matter who launches a new publication or how righteous it is it will still be subjected to the same hopeless economic forces, which is why we need a larger scale solution.
No doubt you're right. It's for the same reason that you can't expect co-ops and/or labor unions to magically "save us from capitalism". But you need things like "community wealth building", "co-determination", and "first right of refusal" to let the workers buy out their bosses when the latter decide to retire and wind up their business affairs, all financed publicly. (Something that Bernie advocates, btw.)
Oh, on another side note, the latter, a publicly financed "first right of refusal" was promoted by the Swedish Social Democrats in the 1970s as a part of their long run vision for a fully post capitalism, socialist society. Jacobinmag had a great issue on the subject. Sadly, they got derailed by the rise of the Reagan-Thatcher tide of neoliberal revanchism.
Oh, and it was also part of Corbyn's program, too!
Given the almost complete chokehold on politics at the national level currently exerted by big capitalists (regardless of whether they like to call themselves "woke" or "anti-woke"), we should really be talking more about how to fund local journalism through local projects of municipal and state governments. I am thinking about the kinds of funds we have raised here in Portland, Oregon, via assessments like our Portland Clean Energy Fund, and even our long-standing "Arts Tax" (the latter of which is fairly criticized for its regressive nature).
Above all, we have to build a solid ideological foundation for economic democracy by explaining that we should no more leave the fate of economic equality to the tender mercies of economic Brownian motion, aka "the free market", than we should privatize the running of our elections and put Boeing Corporation and Chase Manhattan Bank in charge of each of our state's Secretary of State offices. (Of course, due to money in politics and our current system of "wealth primaries" and /dialing for dollars", the latter is effectively exactly what has happened in all but name.)
This is an approach that countries other than the US have had for decades. I live in Canada, and the CBC gets most of its funding from the federal government (it’s also big enough across television, radio and internet to get a piece of the shrinking ad market, but public funding is its main support).
As a result, CBC News is one of the only Canadian outlets still doing investigative journalism and breaking major stories, even as media conglomerates like Postmedia vacuum up local papers and strip them for parts.
Of course, Pierre Poilievre, the current leader of the Conservative party (and frontrunner for Prime Minister in the next Parliament) wants to strip that funding and kill CBC stone dead. So this is about to become a major fight in Canada too.
Canada is currently trying to force the tech companies to share their ad revenue with news orgs that get clicks off their sites, but Meta at least has responded by just censoring news for Canadians on FB and Instagram. They're gambling that most people won't notice or care and that seems to be working for them fine
Love to see city pols who gleefully defund schools turn around when the teachers strike to piously proclaim how "Their priority is getting the kids back to school so they dont fall behind".
Fucker, you are the ones who closed down all the local buildings and crammed them into a big suburban complex that despite being brand new has them crammed 30 to a room with out wven chalk unless the teacher goes out of their own pocket!
There is a third way: public sustained pressure on the tech companies to collaborate more extensively in the creation of the base data and funding that news needs. AI could also help fill this gap. This takes away right wing knee jerk reactions but also put the emphasis where you correctly assign - tech eating the seed corn.
Even Silicon Valley elites must eventually admit that destroying the public square can erode the civic American society they claim to cherish.
Unfortunately they are making too much money for this to work I think, or they would already be acting very different.
But the public pressure is so far non-existent. Even pseudo-populists like the Repub MO senators smell mileage to be gained out of pillorying them. Let’s put that shame to good use— make news funding and base data collection part of the future as much as internet infrastructure.
Reading recent good books about Facebook (e.g. An Ugly Truth by Frenkel and Kang) or Maria Ressa’s interviews about how 90+ of news in many countries comes from Facebook reveals the public consequences of the business model. They are ripe for this pressure.
Great piece, agree entirely. Wrote something about the Irish situation last week.
https://open.substack.com/pub/howtofallapart/p/a-love-letter-to-journalism?r=i982n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
If you haven't checked out the MN Legacy Amendment, it's one model for how this can work. Dedicated tax revenue established through a ballot initiative to fund projects and programs oriented toward creating a better future. You can read about it here: https://www.legacy.mn.gov/about-funds
The latest episode of the Tech Won't Save Us podcast is a nice companion to this, the episode is "What's Really Killing the News Media? w/Victor Pickard".
Public funding can mean not just taxation, but funding by a community through donations. A newspaper supported by its community, i.e. a nonprofit newspaper, reflects the public interest directly. And a nonprofit newspaper is protected by the rules of nonprofit governance. Everyone in town has a strong interest in making sure their newspaper serves the community.
It is a nice idea but the fact that this sort of publication is not already flourishing in communities across the country tells you how hard the actual economics of this would be.
Except that it’s only been in the past few years that people have started to realize how urgent the situation is. The Institute for nonprofit news is a good place to look. There are a number of new hyper local papers in New England that are nonprofit.
Love the idea of having tech companies taxed to keep local print journalism alive. My local paper (Reno, NV) is barely hanging on. I kept my subscription for an extra couple of years even if there wasn’t any stimulating content. I struggled over canceling it for months. Finally, I decided I just didn’t have enough packages that needed the stuffing. 💔
Well done on this, Hamilton. I'm a big believer in stepping out of a crisis to view it from a distance and, even if that means coming up with what can at first sight appear to be madcap ideas, the solutions that can attract dismissive guffaws from established stakeholders can give cause to rethink a whole sector's structure. This is certainly something to be pursued.
My initial thought was the police. They are enforcers of the law regardless of who has broken it. And yet it is trite to observe that the police and public prosecutors, even the judiciary, are not fully impartial. The journalism profession is one of our checks and balances, a guarantee against outlandish behaviour: one might almost view them as a step up from the conscientious citizen who reports criminal activity:
- victim of misconduct
- witness of misconduct
- whistleblower
- reporter/investigator of misconduct
- the police
- prosecution
- judiciary
- legislature.
Hence, the reporter/investigator of misconduct is a link in a chain of offsets that seek to balance excesses of prerogative or even abuse of power and forms an essential lynchpin between the general public who are victims or witnesses of misconduct, plus those moved to call it out, and the instances that are empowered by the state to take action to prevent or prosecute misconduct. If it is possible to structure the bottom four instances such as to be resilient to abuses of power and manipulation, then it should be possible to ensure that state-funded journalists likewise remain immune from pressure and duress. However, the safeguards to prevent the paymaster from calling the reporter's tune would need to be extremely craftily designed.
In the 1840s in Britain, one of the demands of the Chartist movement was annual parliamentary elections, which, it was argued offered the best check to bribery and intimidation, since no purse could buy a constituency under a system of universal male suffrage every twelve months. In effect the prospect of bribing sufficient members of parliament every year was seen as a bar to members of parliament being susceptible to bribery. This demand is the only one the Chartists failed in, for cost reasons (their other demands were unsuccessful but got implemented anyway over time). The Chartists had an incomplete understanding of how lobbying worked; they viewed the prime danger of weighted interests lying in the nature of the man elected to parliament himself.
Any central government funding of journalism could very quickly turn into the Russian model, and it would take only a mild deviation from the true and honest path to bring such journalism within state-controlled, as opposed to state-funded, hands. The speed with which Gazprom took over the mainstream media outlets in Russia in the 1990s shows the avid nature with which media control was viewed as a key to control of the people in the Russian Federation. I just wonder what safeguards could be incorporated to prevent such a bastardisation of a wholesome idea in the liberal west.
Someone mentions the German model: that could be fruitful pickings, looking at just how the eminently neutral ARD (mostly fact-based, with expressly identified "comment" insertions in its TV news reporting) and ZDF, whose bulletins tend to be longer, comment-loaded (much more than ARD) but, after seeing them for several decades now - eminently fair, in my fair-minded mind, that is (https://www.zdf.de).
"Working at the (Cincinnati) Post was like dining on the Titanic. The food was good, but you had to decide when you'd eaten enough and it was time to head for the lifeboat." Larry Nager
Publicly-funded roads, publicly-funded schools, publicly-funded defense...
Publicly-funded journalism fits right in there. And yes, all the above are funded by largely different means, but that is in part because we have several different levels of government. Several angles to work.
You may be interested in a new film by Rick Goldsmith, which I wrote about here: https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/01/23/stripped-for-parts-american-journalism-on-the-brink-new-parkway-rick-goldsmith