A 10-point plan for the government to shore up local newspapers (From The Seattle Times' publisher)

Anyone who watches live TV. They do cut seniors a break on the fee.

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

 

Got it. Thanks!

 

Or you get a situation like in Canada, where I'm sure the CBC does some good stuff but also appears reluctant — if not completely unwilling — to call out the heavy-handed tactics of the government.

 

Oh, newspaper ownership has definitely been the industry's worst enemy over the last 15-20 years. But that's actually another reason to question a government bailout. Any money the government sends to the industry would more than likely end up in the same hands of the idiots and assholes who ruined things.
Think of how a lot of the COVID money intended for small businesses wound up in the hands of people like that. Do you really want to give them a subsidy and trust them to put it to good use?

 

OK.

I proposed this on the other thread.

Paramount Global brought in more than $30 billion last year. How that money gets portioned out to shareholders, and what that means for Wall Street, isn't necessarily a concern for our little thought experiment.

Take the half dozen biggest US media companies.

Ask each for a voluntary contribution to the North American Small Market Journalism Start Up Fund. Let's say one-half of 1% of pre-tax revenue.

In exchange for which they receive an equal reduction in taxable earnings.

In the case of Paramount Global / National Amusements that's $150 000 000.

Added to which we'll include lower estimates from 5 other immense conglomerates. Let's say $75 million each. So $375 million from the other big players.

That's $525 million. Round the whole thing down to accommodate ideologues and tax cranks and freebooters and Gordon Gekko.

So lowball $400 000 000 the first year to launch a network of local news orgs, administered by an independent, non-governmental board. (Corporate contributions will be reduced in the years ahead. This is just the start up.)

Spread that money across 3200 counties in the US, and it's $125000 each. To launch a local news organization, which in each case will produce local content for their county. Online, paper, radio, TV, etc., ad inf. Whatever best suits local needs.

Each news org to contribute stories to a national news exchange made up of a consortium of those local newsrooms.



Maybe we should think about treating local journalism the way we treat other public utilities and services.

As a public necessity not subject to the erratic push/pull of the profit motive.

But not run by government, either.

 

But you're still asking local governments to distribute the money and start up the operations. In which case, you have several big and obvious problems:
1) Out of those 3,200 counties, there are probably a large number that do not need the kind of local journalism that you're talking about (think large metro areas that span several counties and have ample coverage from a variety of media outlets)

2) Out of those 3,200 counties, there are probably a decent number that don't necessarily need or can sustain the kind of coverage we think of. About a third of Texas' 254 counties, for example, have a population of less than 10,000 people. More than a few have populations of less than 1,000. Other rural states like Montana and Nebraska have similar profiles. You're going to have trouble finding the manpower to run a news operation in places like that. More than likely — and at best — it becomes some sort of PIO position that probably already exists in some form.

3) If you think newspaper executives are unsavory types who might pocket some of this money, they have nothing on politicians. There are plenty of local politicians who might tolerate the media, maybe even have good working relationships with them. But there are certainly an equal number who would use a program like this as their own miniaturized form of state media. If the county government is distributing the money, then they can dictate who gets what. And if they can do that, then they can control what they say or the money stops flowing.

4) Even if you decide to distribute directly to small local media outlets with no conditions attached — put aside for a minute the kind of fraud that could invite — how do you divide it fairly, or even in a manner that can do the most good?
My town is probably a prime example of this. We don't have any TV stations in the county, but there is a long-established newspaper, a more recent start-up website that sadly has gained a foothold, and a radio station. Does each one get an equal share of that $125,000 for the county? Does one get the full magilla, and how do you decide which it is?
And I think you greatly overestimate how much $125,000 can get you these days. Even if you're very good at spreading it around, that might be two employees and some equipment and operating expenses. And then, similar to the brain drain we've always seen at small papers, you're going to need someone really dedicated to stick around very long. If it's a start-up operation, there's a good chance the whole thing collapses when one person leaves for a better job.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but there are a lot of problems here besides the philosophical ones.

 

Your last point is a good one, Batman.

Even if thousands of “news desert” counties get the money to start up media organizations, there aren’t enough journalists to staff them. At least not enough willing to do the job in small communities.

My shop is in a small city just under 100,000 and in a county of about 300,000. A large metro area with tons of lifestyle and entertainment options is a little over two hours away. And we pay pretty good wages compared to other newspapers in the region.

And we’ve had a brutal time trying to find people for open positions.

 

Of 1, 2, and 3, I would just say that for all the reasons you mention, politicians local or otherwise play no part in any of this. It has to be a national non-profit NGO.

As to 4, I think you'd have adjust sizes to suit markets. As you point out, not every county will need a news organization. Some will need more than $125000 to operate. Some already have struggling local papers. Or radio stations. Piggyback off that. Some can use the additional money. Some we need to start from scratch.

Use the state land grant college journalism program as your personnel office. Make it part of a scholarship program. Bring in retired journalists as advisers.

You're right of course, that 125K doesn't pay for much. Nor does it attract a lot of talent for very long.

But the alternative, the complete collapse of local news, is worse.

If you're worried about graft and incompetence, what about local politicians and governments unchecked by any kind of local press? Held to no account at all?

For more than 20 years the biggest problem in American journalism has been imagining a new business model.

And we're still arguing over how to rearrange the deck chairs.

 

Again, this Nieman Report is very good on the problems we all face.

https://niemanreports.org/articles/legacy-media-local-news/

 

BuzzFeed News’ business model turned to dust because they were always at the whim of mercurial tech titans | James Hennessy