The journalism industry has been going through some tough times as of late. With local newspapers closing up shop and leaving “news deserts” in various parts of the country, many Americans find it harder to stay informed about what is happening in their communities.
Even the larger news outlets are experiencing serious problems retaining staff while remaining profitable. The Los Angeles Times’ decision to lay off a considerable chunk of its staff is one of many cutbacks that news outlets have been making over recent years.
This problem has prompted many to speculate about the future of American media and to try to come up with solutions. Journalist Alissa Quart penned a piece for Jacobin discussing the struggles media outlets face and offering a solution: Government funding of the press.
Quart vividly describes the problems facing news outlets struggling to make ends meet. As the executive director of the Economic Hardship Reporting Project, an organization aimed at assisting journalists who have fallen on hard times, she described the challenges the group is experiencing.
The requests from independent journalists for grants, including personal emergency grants, have been coming in extra fast lately. Receiving them, me and my staff at the Economic Hardship Reporting Project feel like Lucille Ball grabbing the chocolates on the conveyor belt in that factory episode of I Love Lucy. The pace is picking up as publication closures and media layoffs push many into the world of full-time freelancing, where they compete for dwindling payouts against mounting competition.
The author did not only diagnose the problem. She offers a triage plan intended to rescue this industry. Her prescription: government aid for journalists, public subsidies for small news outlets, and eventually, a fundamental industry transformation into a state-funded enterprise.
Social media is full of predictable “thoughts and prayers” for American journalism in crisis, but not enough calls for action. Few people have any clue what to call for. What we need now are three major shifts. First, we need to pursue a program of fresh near-term media policy reform. Second, we need a new paradigm for media — an ambitious longer-term transformation in funding and ownership. And third, we need an immediate harm-reduction response for reporters and smaller media entities at grave risk.
Quart then argues in favor of changing “our mindset about and framing of what media is” in order to “create an equitable and sustainable media ecosystem.”
We should, for example, consider a return to a Works Progress Administration (WPA) model, where 6,600 reporters were sent out into the field, underwritten by the government, as part of the New Deal’s response to the Great Depression, covering the lives of some of the poorest Americans. Our organization, the Economic Hardship Reporting Project, is a version of this — only, given the absence of WPA-style policy programs of late, without the public funding part. We support hundreds of journalists, a good number of them financially struggling, to report on their experiences and communities and then copublish them nationally. But we are a staff of four, and this is a nonprofit that we raise money for each year. The government needs a version of what we are doing on a much larger scale.
Eventually, Quart would move towards having a journalism industry wholly funded by taxpayer dollars. This would be done by implementing a “media voucher program” that would allow taxpayers to receive a $200 voucher they could donate to a nonprofit news outlet of their choice. She noted that California, New York, and the District of Columbia are already experimenting with the approach.
In this way, journalistic outlets would not rely on the free market to ply their trade. Instead, they would once again be nonprofit enterprises funded by the state.
Of course, there are some serious flaws with this proposition.
For starters, despite Quart’s assurances, there is no way to have a media industry funded by the state that is truly independent. Even if it started that way, it would inevitably become a mouthpiece for the state and those who run it. In essence, it would be what we have in media today on steroids. There is absolutely no way editorial decisions would not end up being made while considering what government officials might think of a particular report or editorial.
Moreover, having an entirely government-funded media apparatus would create a more homogenized journalistic landscape, with each outlet sounding basically the same. This means that each organization will parrot the same messages without much in the way of variety. This would make it much easier for the state to use the media to inculcate the public with its narratives rather than allowing Americans to have many different outlets and perspectives to choose from.
Lastly, state-funded media is even more difficult to trust than the news environment we find ourselves in today. Trust in media is already in the toilet. It will travel straight to the sewer if the state gets further into the news business.
Quart is correct in her assessment of the current dire predicament facing American media. Unfortunately, her call for more government control is not the solution. It might feel good initially, but eventually, it would create an even less informed public.
