Journalism Needs Government Help Media budgets have been decimated as the Internet facilitates a communications revolution. More public funding for news-gathering is the answer.
By LEE C. BOLLINGER
We have entered a momentous period in the history of the American press. The invention of new communications technologies—especially the Internet—is transforming the human capacity to speak, perhaps as monumentally as the invention of the printing press in the 15th century. This is facilitating the largest and fastest expansion of global economic growth in human history. Free speech and a free press are essential to a dynamic economy.
At the same time, however, the financial viability of the U.S. press has been shaken to its core. The proliferation of communications outlets has fractured the base of advertising and readers. Newsrooms have shrunk dramatically and foreign bureaus have been decimated. My best estimate is that there are presently only a few dozen full-time foreign correspondents from the U.S. covering all of China, despite the critical importance of that nation to our future.
Both the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission are undertaking studies of ways to ensure the steep economic decline faced by newspapers and broadcast news does not deprive Americans of the essential information they need as citizens. One idea under consideration is enhanced public funding for journalism.
The idea of public funding for the press stirs deep unease in American culture. To many it seems inconsistent with our strong commitment, embodied in the First Amendment, to having a free press capable of speaking truth to power and to all of us. This press is a kind of public trust, a fourth branch of government. Can it be trusted when the state helps pay for it?
American journalism is not just the product of the free market, but of a hybrid system of private enterprise and public support. By the middle of the last century, daily newspapers were becoming natural monopolies in cities and communities across the country. Publishers and editors drew on the revenue to develop highly specialized expertise that enhanced coverage of economics, law, architecture, medicine, science and technology, foreign affairs and many other fields.
Meanwhile, the broadcast news industry was deliberately designed to have private owners operating within an elaborate system of public regulation, including requirements that stations cover public issues and expand the range of voices that could be heard. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld this system in the 1969 Red Lion decision as constitutional, even though it would have been entirely possible to limit government involvement simply to auctioning off the airwaves and letting the market dictate the news. In the 1960s, our network of public broadcasting was launched with direct public grants and a mission to produce high quality journalism free of government propaganda or censorship.
The institutions of the press we have inherited are the result of a mixed system of public and private cooperation. Trusting the market alone to provide all the news coverage we need would mean venturing into the unknown—a risky proposition with a vital public institution hanging in the balance.
Ironically, we already depend to some extent on publicly funded foreign news media for much of our international news—especially through broadcasts of the BBC and BBC World Service on PBS and NPR. Such news comes to us courtesy of British citizens who pay a TV license fee to support the BBC and taxes to support the World Service. The reliable public funding structure, as well as a set of professional norms that protect editorial freedom, has yielded a highly respected and globally powerful journalistic institution.
There are examples of other institutions in the U.S. where state support does not translate into official control. The most compelling are our public universities and our federal programs for dispensing billions of dollars annually for research. Those of us in public and private research universities care every bit as much about academic freedom as journalists care about a free press.
Yet—through a carefully designed system with peer review of grant-making, a strong culture of independence, and the protections afforded by the First Amendment—there have been strikingly few instances of government abuse. Indeed, the most problematic funding issues in academic research come from alliances with the corporate sector. This reinforces the point that all media systems, whether advertiser-based or governmental, come with potential editorial risks.
To take a very current example, we trust our great newspapers to collect millions of dollars in advertising from BP while reporting without fear or favor on the company's environmental record only because of a professional culture that insulates revenue from news judgment.
Or consider another area where we have well established mechanisms of government support for even the most oppositional views: defense counsel in our courts, where government-paid lawyers (including those in uniform military courts) will do their utmost to undermine cases brought by the government itself. Playing the role of calling our government to account is an accepted ethic of the legal profession despite the political hostility it can sometimes generate.
We should think about American journalism as a mixed system, where the mission is to get the balance right.
To me a key priority is to strengthen our public broadcasting role in the global arena. In today's rapidly globalizing and interconnected world, other countries are developing a strong media presence. In addition to the BBC, there is China's CCTV and Xinhua news, as well as Qatar's Al Jazeera. The U.S. government's international broadcasters, like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, were developed during the Cold War as tools of our anticommunist foreign policy. In a sign of how anachronistic our system is in a digital age, these broadcasters are legally forbidden from airing within the U.S.
This system needs to be revised and its resources consolidated and augmented with those of NPR and PBS to create an American World Service that can compete with the BBC and other global broadcasters. The goal would be an American broadcasting system with full journalistic independence that can provide the news we need. Let's demonstrate great journalism's essential role in a free and dynamic society.
Mr. Bollinger is president of Columbia University and author of "Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open: A Free Press for a New Century" (Oxford, 2010).
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 Posts: 1850 Location: under the sun moon and sea
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:42 pm Post subject:
its a tough time for journalism that isnt broadcast. but you dont want the govt to have any hand in it. because that gives the govt too much power to express they views and less room for the journalists to criticise the govt _________________ http://jahbleezy.blogspot.com/ step into babylon: http://jahblaze.blogspot.com/
Joined: 10 Sep 2008 Posts: 1056 Location: LONDON, UK
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:12 pm Post subject:
ric wrote:
the bbc gets hate from the british govt all the time
yeah they have a touchy relationship some times, but its a diffrent system over here, all the local news stations no matter if its public tv ones or sattelite(cable) ones have to be unbias and centrist, you can't really deviate from that even if you wanted like rupert murdoch wants to do wit sky news on sattelite, the laws over here don't allow it, so you can't get blatant over the top, comical cartoony propaganda like you get on fox news
but they all come from a centrist point of view of whatever goverment is in power though, so don't get it twisted
Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 9208 Location: Where one of the greatest MC's was a local cat
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:55 pm Post subject:
^ What does your media habits have to do with the rest of us?
Would you pay for the privilege of watching FOX News? If the answer is that you wouldn't, then the implication is that "we" shouldn't. _________________
I wouldn't pay for Fox News because it's propoganda. Please save me the relativist bullshit response too.
I wouldn't fund MSNBC with public funds either.
You're such a milquetoast, mini-Chris Matthews. The BBC isn't "propoganda"? Bill Moyers isn't a propogandist? Are you serious with yourself there, guy? Anyone who brags about watching the BBC as if it is the path to intellectual enlightenment is a huge faggot. _________________
Some more relativist bullshit... If you can't tell the difference between PBS and the BBC and stations like Fox News and MSNBC you're a fucking retard.
We fund the school system with public funds for the expressed purpose of educating and informing the populace. I don't understand how funding PBS, or subsidizing media that's used for educational / informative purposes and is run to inform the public first and foremost (not to make money) is that much different.
If you take issue with Frontline's politics, I'd be all for funding an investigative journalism series with a "right of center" slant with public funds on PBS too.
I really don't get people who make the "we have the freedom to be as uniformed and misled as possible" argument. Seems really stubborn, backwards, and obtuse to me. _________________ Alt Wifey
Some more relativist bullshit... If you can't tell the difference between PBS and the BBC and stations like Fox News and MSNBC you're a fucking retard.
We fund the school system with public funds for the expressed purpose of educating and informing the populace. I don't understand how funding PBS, or subsidizing media that's used for educational / informative purposes and is run to inform the public first and foremost (not to make money) is that much different.
If you take issue with Frontline's politics, I'd be all for funding an investigative journalism series with a "right of center" slant with public funds on PBS too.
I really don't get people who make the "we have the freedom to be as uniformed and misled as possible" argument. Seems really stubborn, backwards, and obtuse to me.
This is precisely what you're arguing. Are you kidding me? Now you're using public education as a means to bolster your own convoluted message? Sounds stubborn, backwards and obtuse to me. _________________
Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 9208 Location: Where one of the greatest MC's was a local cat
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:31 pm Post subject:
Icesickle wrote:
I wouldn't pay for Fox News because it's propoganda. Please save me the relativist bullshit response too.
I wouldn't fund MSNBC with public funds either.
It was just an example, man. There's no need to go apoplectic every time FOX is mentioned.
Americans are perfectly capable, with no action from government, to determine whether they value your preferred media outlets or not. Of course, not enough people do - a fact that reflects the considered judgment of millions of people that Newsweek, The New York Times, etc. are unworthy recipients of their time and money. If these outlets can’t find a business model that works for them, well, too bad so sad.
For the record, I enjoy a lot of what PBS has to offer. However, I don’t think it’s right to demand of others to pay for what I consume. I wouldn’t mind paying a couple of dollars a month if they were forced to compete like everyone else. _________________
Last edited by Seiko Flossberg on Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
Exclusive: Helen Thomas On Fox News’ Front Row Seat “Too Bad!”
by Tommy Christopher | 2:19 pm, August 2nd, 2010
It may sound corny to some, but Helen Thomas is never very far a way from my thoughts, but the occasion of the White House Correspondents Association’s re-assignment of her iconic front-row center seat in the Brady Briefing Room provided me with the impetus to speak with Helen for the first time since her controversial retirement. I called her this afternoon to reconnect, and to get her reaction to the news. I was surprised to learn that my call was the first she’d heard of it. Her reaction, and those of some of our colleagues, after the jump.
When I asked her if she’d like to say a few words about the Associated Press’ assignment to her old seat, she said “The Associated Press? I thought they already had a (front row) seat.”
I explained that they would be moving to the center seat, a scenario that I floated in June in response to Chris Wallace’s gloating on the matter. She asked “Well, who’s getting their old seat?”
I told her it would be Fox News.
“Too bad.” she replied. Asked to elaborate, she said “What do I think of it? I think that I have no say, no power over that anymore…I hope they do a good job.”
I told her I was sure they would. Major Garrett and Wendell Goler are credits to the profession of journalism.
I also took the opportunity to thank Helen for being such a good friend and role model in the year-and-a-half we worked together. She sounded good, better than I’ve ever heard her when she wasn’t having a go at Robert Gibbs. She also sent her love to her former colleagues.
Other reactions included Major Garrett’s characteristically humble spreading of the credit to his colleagues at Fox News:
Those of us who will sit in the front owe a debt to Jim Angle, Carl Cameron, Bret Baier and network that supported them.
New York Daily News correspondent Ken Bazinet agrees that “The board got this decision right. This was a no-brainer from the start. Fox has the numbers to back up it’s argument for moving and AP indeed belongs front and center.”
White House uber-tweeter Mark Knoller remarked, “You don’t need a front row seat to cover the White House skillfully.”
While the big story here is the front row, Knoller is absolutely right. The practical difference between 2nd and 1st rows is almost nonexistent. The ripples of these moves will be felt more by people like my friend Bill Press, who says “I think it was a Solomonesque decision that will offend no one. The main advantage? Now maybe Gibbs will more readily get to the fourth and fifth rows – where the best questions come from!”
Like Knoller, The Daily Caller’s Jon Ward has a suggestion for better question equity. “Its what I expected and Fox deserves to join the other networks there. I’m very happy that the foreign press outlets now have a dedicated chair as well. I’d still like to see a pool seat in the first three rows so reporters from different outlets can rotate in and get a chance to break into the regular pattern of questioners.”
For most of us, that front-row center seat will always be Helen Thomas’ seat. In the month following her resignation, it remained empty during briefings, but it remained the first destination for visitors to the Brady Briefing Room, press and non-press alike. After exactly one month, USA Today’s David Jackson became the first of a very few reporters who got to sit in Helen’s seat before it was reassigned. Only 5 White House reporters can claim that privilege, and here they are:
I confess that, aside from Jackson, I only recognize Ebony Magazine’s Kevin Chapell and HuffPo’s Sam Stein. I’ve only sat in the front row once, and was so unnerved, I never tried it again.
Still unknown is what will happen to Helen’s nameplate. Given time and context, I hope that this symbol of Helen’s historic importance is given a place of honor on the wall of the Brady Briefing Room in which she worked for so many years.
Fox News to move to front-row White House briefing-room seat
By Elise Viebeck - 08/01/10 04:50 PM ET
The White House Correspondents Association voted unanimously Sunday afternoon to move Fox News to the front row of the White House briefing room.
The seating change was prompted by the resignation of veteran UPI reporter Helen Thomas.
According to Ed Henry, the senior White House correspondent for CNN and member of the WHCA board, the Associated Press will move to the front-row middle seat formerly occupied by Thomas.
Fox News will replace the AP in its former seat, also in the front row, and NPR, which lobbied for Thomas's seat along with Fox and Bloomberg News, will take Fox's former seat in the second row.
The 2010-2011 WHCA board includes representatives from USA Today, Reuters, C-SPAN, the New York Times, Politico, Time magazine, NPR and the D.C. Examiner.
Thomas, a longtime critic of Israeli foreign policy, had resigned in late May after a video clip in which she said that Israelis should "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go home" — to Europe, the United States and other places — surfaced on the internet.
Liberal groups had lobbied for NPR's placement in the front row over Fox, which one petition called a "right-wing propaganda outlet."
Joined: 08 Mar 2007 Posts: 4595 Location: yellow and pink
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:51 pm Post subject:
its not like hes different, although he might be i dont read too much of that stuff, its just that touting a front row seat vote means nothing about the quality of journalism or the place that that dude has in the hearts and minds of the press corps
edit: actually yeah hes different. his questions, as far as i can tell, are grade A gotcha bullshit
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
like that means anything about the quality of journalism or questions those dudes ask