The dawn of Donald Trump’s second term signaled a shift in efforts to bolster local news with government assistance.
For several years, Congress had considered measures to provide tax credits that would help news organizations and to force Google and Facebook to pay for the journalism they repurpose. Despite some bipartisan support, especially for tax credits, those measures fell short, with no prospect of success under Trump and his MAGA allies.
As a result, attention has turned from Washington to state-led initiatives, which have proven to be a mixed bag.
Read the rest at Poynter Online.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“At the same time, the days of profitable local newspapers funded by advertising and reader subscriptions are well behind us.”
Many thanks for this piece, very informative, very disturbing. The ultimate question is, what is the sustainable (sorry for the hackneyed term) financial model for “a free press” in this society? My quick, superficial take is that the advertising-based model passably(?) did that that, albeit at the risk/reality of “manufactured consent.” Publicly/state-funded media? Well, Pravda comes to mind, as does the vulnerability of a PBS to the ideological, private sector-revering nuts on the Right (no, I don’t think those on the Left are anywhere near so toxic).
I think the BBC early on had it right, its charter being “to inform, to educate, to entertain.” Unless I’ve got my facts wrong, at one time it even carried, as a regular feature, lectures, discussions, and debates with the likes of George Kennan. Seems to be a pretty good statement of purpose to me. How that has played out over the subsequent decades may not be especially edifying, the BBC has been involved in revolting scandals, slipshod journalism, and sycophancy with the best (worst) of them.
Does the BBC experience then mean that the “public interest” or “public utility” is a dead end? Don’t know. For certain it has inherent caveats, but can it be improved upon? Otherwise, what is the alternative in lieu of having credible, widely recognized and accepted sources of information, analysis, and holding authority to account? Do as I have been compelled to do, subscribe to a dozen or more “alternative” or “independent” news sources?
Further thoughts triggered… My background is in health care, got an MBA in health care management from a Big Name business school. Was fortunate enough at the time (45+) years ago to have had on the faculty, and as my adviser, one of the few staff members actually to write part of the Medicare and Great Society health-related legislation (halcyon days in America society). He was a treasure trove, born of experience and character, of aphorisms, insight, adages, and witticisms about health care (and more).
One such that just popped into my head as a result of the various tax credit initiatives mentioned here is “Health policy is tax policy.” A simple, five-word sentence. From which volumes upon volumes can be written, including that “information policy” is tax policy (or license fee policy, as the case with BBC).