It is extraordinary that American journalists of all people could argue for a government bail-out, but if George W Bush can nationalise their banks, then why not the newsrooms

Beckett, Charlie

LSE Research Online

Jefferson: press promoter?2009-3-21Journalism in crisis: time for a government bailoutblogs.lse.ac.uk /polis/2009/03/21/journalism-in-crisis-time-for-a-government-bailout/It is extraordinary that American journalists of all people could argue for a government bail-out, but  ifGeorge W Bush can nationalise their banks, then why not the newsrooms?In a deeply serious and progressive article in The Nation  John Nichol and Robert McChesney make a case thatattempts to move us on from the wailing and gnashing of teeth in US newsrooms. It is also a serious effort toacknowledge ‘Old Media’ failings and accomodate to new circumstances. It is a bid to fill in the gaps that culturaltheorists such as Clay Shirky cannot always attend to.  They are looking forward but their main tool for repairing themess is good old-fashioned state subsidy:The old corporate media system choked on its own excess. We should not seek to restore or re-create it. We have to move forward to a system that creates a journalism far superior to that of therecent past. We can do exactly that–but only if we recognize and embrace the necessity ofgovernment intervention. Only government can implement policies and subsidies to provide aninstitutional framework for quality journalism.This sound like an astounding reversal of American market ideology and a surrender ofthe Fourth Estate role, but  Nichols and McChesney argue that there is a precedent inAmerican history itself:The founders regarded the establishment of a press system, the Fourth Estate,as the first duty of the state. Jefferson and Madison devoted considerableenergy to explaining the necessity of the press to a vibrant democracy. Thegovernment implemented extraordinary postal subsidies for the distribution ofnewspapers. It also instituted massive newspaper subsidies through printingcontracts and the paid publication of government notices, all with the intent ofexpanding the number and variety of newspapers. When Tocqueville visited theUnited States in the 1830s he was struck by the quantity and quality of newspapers and periodicalscompared with France, Canada and Britain. It was not an accident. It had little to do with “freemarkets.” It was the result of public policy.This combination of lenient fiscal policy and advertising subsidy is quite different to the model adopted in the UKwhere the Government set-up a licence-fee funded national broadcaster, the BBC.  Although, it also used otherdevices such as licencing and regulation to create other public service broadcasters. Nichols and McChesney thatUS media has long benefited from a false market created by government rules and spectrum rationing@Today the government doles out tens of billions of dollars in direct and indirect subsidies, includingfree and essentially permanent monopoly broadcast licenses, monopoly cable and satellite privileges,copyright protection and postal subsidies.OK, so if we accept that even in the USA there has already been government intervention in the market, what formof intervention would save journalism now?1/2First of all, the authors argue, the US news media needs a hand-out to get it through its current difficulties. Thenslash postal rates for all struggling journals and papers. Then give subscribers tax breaks.  Spend more money onpromoting media literacy among the young. Oh, and spend a lot more money on public service media.At present the US government spends less that $500 million per year on public service media. If it was brought intoline with other western democracies the figure would be nearer $10 billion. Nichols and McChesney are asking for$60 billion over three years.This is starting to make the American automobile industry look self-denying.But Nichols and McChesney claim there is a lot at stake here:We have to open the door to enlightened public policies and subsidies. We need our members ofCongress and our leading scholars to approach this matter with the same urgency with which theywould approach the threat of terrorism, pandemic, financial collapse or climate change. We need anorganized citizenry demanding the institutions that make self-government possible. Only then canwe, like our founders, build a free press. The technologies and the economic challenges are, ofcourse, more complex than in the 1790s, but the answer is the same: the democratic state, thegovernment, must create the conditions for sustaining the journalism that can provide the people withthe information they need to be their own governors.I am not saying that they are wrong in principle to take the subsidy/bailout route. It is not as if they do not recognisethe dangers in terms of editorial impartiality. But I do not hear enough about how the kind of  journalism that willresult from this subsidy will be worthwhile. How will it be different to the complacent, bloated and boring journalismthat characterised so much of mainstream American newspaper journalism? How will it be more relevant and usefulthat the rampantly commercial and self-glorifying journalism that mainstream American TV networks produced?I do not think the authors have questioned enough whether anyone would really miss much of mainstreamjournalism if it disappeared.  Why should the taxpayer cough up for journalists to repeat their past mistakes? Whatcan we offer them that will transform not just the media but its relation to society and its impact on people’s lives?The current crisis is a real moment of danger for journalism. But it is also an opportunity. Not just for innovation andreform. But also for us to look much harder at what we did and to question much more vigorously what we are therefor.Copyright © 2014 London School of Economics and Political Science2/2

Journalism in crisis: time for a government bailout

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online