In the print world, postal subsidies are one example of how federal law has molded the economics of journalism. Just as mandating the “public interest, convenience, or necessity” was an intentional statement of principle by Congress, so was the enactment of postal subsidies for the press in the eighteenth century. George Washington and James Madison recommended the subsidies to strengthen the press’s role in the newborn republic, as Geoffrey Cowan and David Westphal of the University of Southern California describe in their paper, “Public Policy and Funding the News.” In today’s dollars, mail subsidies provided $2 billion annually to magazines and newspapers at their peak in 1970. They have declined as the postal service has struggled with deficits, but they remain important to the economics of magazines.
Laws passed by state and local governments requiring the publication of legal notices in newspapers have generated hundreds of millions of dollars in additional annual subsidies to journalism. The adamantly free-market Wall Street Journal has a contract with the federal government to print seized-property notices; measured by column inches, the government was the Journal’s top advertiser in a four-week study conducted by Cowan and Westphal. Should we be bemused, given the ardently anti-government philosophy of the Journal’s editorial page? Not unduly; the First Amendment protects hypocritical speech, too.
The question we should focus on is whether, in this time of economic shocks and technological change, the intent of Congress to address the public interest through all these existing policies is being adequately met.
One obvious place for you to begin is with those formal “public interest obligations” undertaken by broadcasters in exchange for their operating licenses. In theory, radio and television stations must demonstrate a commitment to public issues as a condition for FCC license renewal. The stations report in quarterly filings about their performance. In reality, that tradeoff has devolved into something of a farce.
One might think that since your office is at the FCC, Steve, you could go downstairs to some whirring electronic archive and peruse the “P.I.O.” filings, as they are known (P.I.O. stands for “public-interest obligations”) to see how your licensees are doing. As you probably know, however, the P.I.O. rules have been so watered down by special interest lobbyists that stations do not have to actually file their public interest reports with anyone but themselves, as long as they are available to the public during office hours.
A group of researchers led by my colleague Tom Glaisyer recently collected and reviewed filings in several cities, to sample the health of the public interest regime. Here in Washington, they wandered over to WUSA 9, a CBS affiliate with a not-bad record of local news broadcasting. In a recent quarterly report, WUSA’s staff dutifully listed its contributions to the public interest. On the public issue of “Child Abuse,” for example, on April 27, 2010, the station broadcast, for two minutes, the following story:
Authorities say Janay Morgan Majors shot and killed her husband…. It happened inside the couple’s home on Lanes Corner Road in Spotsylvania County…. ‘She did call and said, ‘I shot my husband,’ Lieutenant James Bibens told 9 News Now….
After that Public Interest Report comes another on the issue of “Domestic Abuse.” The date of that story is listed as June 18, 2010. The story begins: “Authorities say Janay Morgan Majors shot and killed her husband….” The text is identical to that illuminating Child Abuse.
Pity the poor junior staff members who must waste time and paper on this charade at WUSA and hundreds of other stations. Nor are the WUSA public interest filings exceptionally bad; they are typical. The very existence of such a Dickensian system of busywork and evasion is a symptom of how broken the public interest component of our inherited federal media policy regime has become. I hope your report will seize the opportunity to delve into this travesty.

Fabulous article.
Please see my work, I am a broadcast journalist turned activist who specifically targets public interest obligations and license challenges. My film "Broadcast Blues" defines Public Interest Obligations in a way average people can understand it, and my blog http://www.suewilsonreports.com has numerous posts on this topic. I blog for Huffington Post and others as well.
I believe I will be having a panel at Free Press' National Media Reform Conference that will introduce a national, managed, publicized plan to help local communities launch license challenges.
#1 Posted by Sue Wilson, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 04:05 PM
Excellent analysis. For those interested in this topic, the Report of the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy, www.knightcomm.org, could serve as a useful resource. It steps back a level, in this period of journalistic turmoil, to ask what do communities need in terms of information? In fact the Report, Informing Communities: Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age, largely helped to frame the FCC Future of Media Inquiry itself. The report is the result of a bipartisan commission of 17 highly regarded people ranging in political persuasions and outlooks from Ted Olson (attorney for Citizens United and former Solicitor General in the George W. Bush Administration) to Benjamin Todd Jealous, President of the NAACP. It supported market solutions for local journalism while at the same time supporting the increased funding of public service media. The latter, it thought, however, needed to improve in its localism, diversity, and interactivity. The Aspen Institute, which produced the Commission and the Report in partnership with the Knight Foundation, is in the process of releasing eight white papers following up the rather general consensus recommendations with specific measures of how to get from here to there. Much more there, plus an opportunity to discuss aspects in the blog and dialogue sections, all at www.knightcomm.org.
Charlie Firestone
Executive Director
Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program
#2 Posted by Charlie Firestone, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 05:36 PM
Steve -
Thanks for taking the time to step back and take a big picture look at the many ways our whole media policy system is shaping journalism right now - and how we could rethink these systems to better serve journalism and democracy.
As we look for models and ideas, there is much we can learn from other countries. Our media ecosystem is as unique as our nation, and we don't want to try to duplicate any one system - like the BBC - but there are still important lessons to learn and pieces we can explore to help foster innovation and protect journalism's independence.
In the coming weeks we'll be releasing a major report on the policies and structure found in 14 other democratic nations that help insulate journalists from the public funds that flow into supporting high quality public media. You can see a summary of that research here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38710467/Crisis-of-Imagination-Summary
Josh Stearns, Free Press and SaveTheNews.org
#3 Posted by Josh Stearns, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 11:07 AM
"journalists carry powerful antibodies to any hint that government might encroach on press freedom"...but do they have any antibodies about Oligarchs encroaching on press freedom? Do they know Plato's view of the role of the state to protect the masses from the few powerful Oligarchs?...who will always serve themselves when given the opening to do so? ...me thinks not...
Meanwhile, the American people are now whipped around by Oligarchs who control everything under the very noses of these "principled" Journos who have antibodies about the government encroaching on press freedom, but conveniently no antibodies about Oligarch shareholders encroaching on every freedom...including the freedom to pump and dump asset markets, fear monger, race bait, and scapegoat...
naming three branches doesn't seem enough...conveniently under-educated all...
#4 Posted by planckbrandt, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 01:10 PM
Knight report is good, but don't forget universities are prone now to control by Oligarchs...we are used and abused by these tax-exempt institutions serving the Oligarch's interests...this story developed by citizen journos paid for by individual small gifts...no corporate media would touch since all the cronies in their whole-system are fingered...
http://spot.us/stories/544-the-investors-club-how-the-university-of-california-regents-spin-public-money-into-private-profit
of course Foundations like Knight are in love with philanthropy as the solution to a weak or failed state... "philanthropic" gifts to universities are just as ideological as BODs in private corporations...
#5 Posted by planckbrandt, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 01:30 PM
Oh, boy!! Government funded news reporting. Or will it be a "license to publish?"
http://lincolnparishnewsonline.wordpress.com/
#6 Posted by Walter Abbott, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 04:03 PM
-With NPR a Rockefeller front
-AP/Reuters a Rothchild front
-FOX a Murdoch RED China cover operation
-the main nets corporate, globalist and
all but openly YOU-genocidal
--------------UH, what more regulation
were you thinking of?
#7 Posted by tiger tim, CJR on Sun 7 Nov 2010 at 06:18 AM
It is sad to see the ostensible luminaries of the press in prostrate posture and supplicating the Airwaves Overlords, as though press freedom (and freedom of association, generally) is something to be doled out by the federal govt.
To thus assume the Feds' right to control, by subsidy, penalty, etc., what is said and how it is said and who says it is to concede to the Feds the freedom of speech (just as the assumption that the IRS rightfully arbitrates how much of your earnings you shall keep is to concede every penny from the start).
But never mind, for our luminaries have informed us that this kind of "extreme" and "anti-government" rationale only makes the govt's job of allocating freedom more difficult. (And besides, who but a heartless extremist would want to "kill off Big Bird, Frontline, and PBS NewsHour, and seriously damage All Things Considered and Morning Edition"?)
But in fact, what keeps a press free and independent is its freedom from govt, and its determination to resist govt control, expose govt encroachment on freedom, and so on. Govt subsidies and other govt-media incest ultimately destroy such freedom and independence. But never mind, for such quaint and archaic truths necessarily render the press "anti-government," and we can't have that!
FCC = Fascist Communication Control. Free the press: abolish the FCC (and the FTC, FDA, DEA, DHS, etc.).
#8 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Sat 8 Jan 2011 at 12:45 AM