There seems to be no end to the addled thinking about the current state of American journalism. The latest comes from a lofty perch at the Columbia Journalism School in a report entitled “The Reconstruction of American Journalism.” As reported by the NY Times, the report (available here) was written by Leonard Downie Jr., former executive editor of the Washington Post, and Michael Schudson, a professor whose background is sociology and who is noted for work in civic life and journalism.
Like too many old media types, the authors cannot even entertain the possibility that accountability journalism can exist without traditional–make that newspapers–news gathering operations. (Read Jan Schaffer’s Columbia Journalism Review First Read take on the report. She makes excellent points.)
Thus, they present six recommendations, all designed to prop up traditional media. While the report presents an interesting analysis of the total current media landscape, it downplays emerging models of journalism that have at least the possibility of providing useful news for citizens. And They pretty much ignore the concept that readers and advertisers have deserted traditional journalism. Let’s take recommendatons one at a time.
Six recommendations
1. The report suggests revamping tax laws to encourage more nonprofit news operations. There are many ways that could work, but one might be to allow newspapers to spin off their money-losing newsrooms into nonprofit operations. Such a plan would certainly make the rest of the media company more valuable.
2. The report suggests raising more money from individuals and foundations for nonprofit journalism. Foundation money is not without limits. More charitable giving to new journalism ventures most certainly would be felt in other areas, such as education. The short answer here is that there is not enough money in America to make enough difference in local, state and national reporting.
3. The authors want universities to supply more students to do reporting for news organizations. Newspapers long have regarded journalism schools as employee training operations. Now, apparently, news media would have students doing most of their reporting for free.
4. Better data base access to make reporting easier. This one makes sense.
5. Because they claim public radio and television do little local reporting, the authors want increased funding with increased mandates and control by government. Additionally, they suggest using existing and new fees on commercial broadcast, internet and telecom companies so that the government could:
6. Subsidize news reporting, most probably for newspapers.
In these last two recommendations, the authors illuminate both their biases and their lack of understanding about the 21st century knowledge-based economy.
Public radio and public television provide little local news coverage? Don’t tell that to Laura Leslie of WUNC, one of the best statehouse reporters in North Carolina. Don’t tell that to UNC TV, which provides extensive coverage of local issues and elections. Or don’t tell it to the many other public radio and television stations covering their states and communities. Indeed, some of the evidence presented in the report about public broadcasting contradicts their own recommendation. Print people never have had a high regard for electronic media. This is simply an extension of old thinking.
Government subsidized news media? This one flunks both civics 101 and journalism 101. The benefits of an independent press are so obvious, the dangers of a government subsidized press are so clear, that they won’t be discussed here. But those benefits and dangers apparently escape the authors. The NY Times quotes Downie as saying:
“We are just suggesting that certain kinds of reporting are a public good and should be funded as such,” Mr. Downie said. “There are plenty of precedents and I don’t think that government support necessarily means government control.”
The press and government
That statement is most ironic, coming from an editor whose stump speech always has been the virtues of separating government and media. In fact, Downie has opposed even the notion of reporters voting in elections, lest such action taint their objectivity. Additionally, he has adamantly held the position that news organizations have no stake in the government they cover, notwithstanding the fact the media’s franchise comes from constitutional freedoms–and thus their stake in democracy is huge.
This is a report that should be viewed for what it is: just a couple of old media types wishing the world could be the way it was in their youth. Posted by Leroy Towns