By clinging to the idea that they work in a profession free of government involvement, journalists are perpetuating a myth that may impede the future of their profession. As Overholser says, “Government is already playing all kinds of roles for good and for ill. And we ignore that at our peril. We’re just ignorant about it.” Still, in the last few years, as the traditional business model has fallen apart, a number of journalists and scholars have begun to discuss possible solutions, including the once-taboo subject of government support. “People are feeling so unsettled,” says Overholser. “The good news is we’re in such a crisis that you can’t just sleepwalk through it anymore.”
Before we begin a discussion of the ways in which government might do more to ensure a healthy future for journalism, it is important to address a basic question that lies at the heart of the debate on solutions to the problems of the press: Given the rise of information on the Internet, what, exactly, is worth saving? The answer: ground-level reporting.
Daniel Hallin, chairman of the Department of Communication at the University of California, San Diego, points out what he calls “one of the greatest ironies” of today’s vast media landscape: “In this so-called information age, we actually have fewer reporters now gathering the basic information on which the whole information society operates.” According to Hallin, the proliferation of media outlets and programming is largely occurring in two domains: commentary and entertainment. “The amount of serious information-gathering is actually going down,” he says. “Dramatically so.” Few Web sites independent of newspapers are doing serious newsgathering.
Yet with the business model for news in transition, mainstream media owners are cutting staff and reducing content, particularly hard-news coverage, in order to maintain the high profit margins newspapers have historically enjoyed. “The editorial costs of the average newspaper run from about nine to twelve percent,” says Robert Picard. “That’s nothing in comparison to the total costs of the newspaper, yet they’ve been bearing the brunt more and more.” Certainly the news industry needs to think about different business models (Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, is a proponent of one in which consumers would pay for news as part of their monthly Internet subscription). But it would also be wise to consider the many ways that government could simply protect journalism from market pressures. I’d like to present some of them—not by way of endorsing one idea over another, but to spark a necessary discussion.

How horrifying!
This piece certainly follows Noam Chomsky’s critique of corporate media: That members of the press cannot truly free themselves from their financial masters.
But what could be worse than government-funded media, in terms of keeping it free? It directly militates against the reason the Founders wanted a free press to exist in the first place: To hold government accountable.
What a frightening and Orwellian thought. I warn the Left now: keeping the New York Times and Washington Post may sound enticing now, but if you succeed in funding the media with taxpayer dollar, and then inevitably warping its coverage in favor of government solutions, expect the Right to take it over as it has the Supreme Court. And then you will live in an awful world: One in which the next George W. Bush controls the - formerly - liberal media.
Be warned.
Posted by chris
on Thu 27 Sep 2007 at 06:07 PM
What amuses me about this is that the gnashing of teeth surrounds the importane of journalism, but what we're really trying to do is save newspapers... just one form of journalism. The devil's advocate might suggest that if print journalism can't compete with online journalism, perhaps it is time for evolution.
Posted by jtcomm
on Fri 28 Sep 2007 at 01:18 PM
Hallin assumes that we have fewer reporters. I assume he means in the "print media" (and, possibly, television). If we assume that anyone who reports news is a reporter then we must include large numbers who post to internet blogs, newgroups, forums, and wikis. No shortage of reporters there.
Posted by eris23
on Sun 30 Sep 2007 at 01:52 AM
When the founding fathers were talking about the press, they meant just that, a printing press. Not media conglomerates. The closest we have to their vision are blogs.
Also, I quit reading when the article started being about what is done in Europe. My ancestors left Europe a long time ago and I really don't care how things are done there.
Posted by John Davies
on Tue 2 Oct 2007 at 04:57 PM
To think that the founders would approve of subsidies for media outlets makes me shudder. Whatever government supports, it eventually winds up controlling. I know do nothing journalists would love subsidies so they can continue producing mediocre work, but they should remember that he who signs the check ultimately controls your work
Posted by TDC
on Wed 3 Oct 2007 at 11:44 AM
We're creating a pro/con article on Debatepedia on this topic. Excuse the fact that it's a little underdeveloped to start, but that's the point.
http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:_Should_governments_subsidize_journalism
Posted by Brooks on Fri 1 May 2009 at 12:00 AM
Brooks:
Great article - I will keep an eye on it to see how it progresses.
Larry
Cellular Phone Number Search
Posted by Larry on Sun 24 May 2009 at 12:06 AM