But we have a long way to go. When I called Tom Rosenstiel and said I was writing about ways government could support the press, he responded brusquely, “Well, I’m not a big fan of government support.” I explained that I just wanted to put the possibility on the table. “Well, I’d take it off the table,” he said. Hallin believes it will “take another decade or two of newsroom cutbacks” before the idea of government support for the press is taken seriously. “You have to think of something like the analogy of the environmental movement,” says Hallin. “At a certain point people say, ‘You know, we’re letting market forces take their course, and it’s really causing a lot of harm. We have to intervene in some way.’ And I think it’s going to happen with culture and information at a certain point as well. There’s going to come a time when people say, ‘We really shouldn’t go on this way, there’s too much harm being done.’”
Yet two more decades of newsroom and reporting cutbacks could result in the journalistic equivalent of a scorched earth. Can we really afford to wait that long?
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