DescentBB

I've stated on this board a few times some of my issues with the media. They typically focus on it's capitalist nature and an incentive structure that doesn't favor more or better reporting. Everyone will have their own individual issues they perceive, but there are some things that everyone will likely agree on:

Local newspapers are struggling because people are reading it on the web. National media is shifting from more expensive investigative reporting to cheaper entertainment or opinion. Newsrooms are shrinking. Wolf Blitzer makes $5 Million a year to greet a spokesperson.

I have a solution. It's based on a method of funding political campaigns that I heard a while ago. Everyone is taxed, say, $10. They can then direct to which candidate that $10 goes. That's a ridiculous amount of money that candidates no longer have to go whoring for.

Reworking this idea toward the news media, what if everyone were taxed $20, and then were able to direct that $20 to whatever news enterprise they wanted? Maybe require at least $5 of the $20 go to local media outlets. The rest you can use to fund whatever interests you have. Anyone would be able to be funded, so you can dump all your money on a blogger if you want. The main restriction is that it would have to be some sort of news reporting media. Apathetic people who don't direct their money would have it all split between their local outlets. It's democratized public financing!

This wouldn't be a replacement for capitalist media, but it would help fund independent newsrooms with a bias toward local, and partially relieve some of the negative capitalist pressures and incentives that harm the news media.

What could possibly go wrong?

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

given that one of the core roles is to watch over government, I would be uneasy with the plan. Financed by the public, the whole process would have to go through government to exist(you mention taxes as the start point), and thus government could EASILY make it not exist, real quick, if need be. No thanks.

I do think we should force ALL publicly license content providers to provide equal time as was once the case, however.

Vander wrote:I have a solution.

I like it. Obviously there needs to be some things worked out. I have never once filed my taxes and donated $3 to a campaign fund. But given the choice I could see myself donating that money to different State funded media, provided there were adequate controls in place to keep it fair and balanced. For starters we could look at NPR's model and see where we can improve on it. This is definitely an idea worth looking into further. I have a co-worker with a journalism degree who is working as an admin-assistant since he can't find respectable work. Plus, LET"S NOT FORGET that a lot of news agencies are using robots to write articles. Automation affects how we get information, so one thing we can address is ethical standards on automated journalism. We already have news sites that pretty much aggregate blogs and other sources into articles, and I think those scripts should be audited for bias.

The worst thing is that the Russian media are increasingly copying the style of the American media, more borrow not the best. I even already do not watch Russian news on TV , because it has become impossible to watch and listen to, better to just read.

Nightshade wrote:"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Just think what jihadwatch.com could do with an influx of funding!

callmeslick wrote:given that one of the core roles is to watch over government, I would be uneasy with the plan.

As uneasy as the current situation of consolidating ownership by the same powerful interests that generally control the government? What's that going to look like in 100 years? Like all capitalist endeavors, it's typically a race to the bottom. Produce the product as cheaply as possible with just enough quality that people will still buy it. That's fine if you're talking about an iPhone or a dishwasher. But quality local reporting is necessary for a functioning democracy, and it's currently subject to a failing business model.

callmeslick wrote:Financed by the public, the whole process would have to go through government to exist(you mention taxes as the start point), and thus government could EASILY make it not exist, real quick, if need be. No thanks.

It would probably have to be enacted at the constitutional level. It's obviously such a big change it should be hard to pass and hard to repeal. There would have to be wide ranging agreement on its merit.

Here's how I envision it working in practice. "Vander's Fish Wrap" would apply for a "Media Credit ID Number." Some verification process can take place, (I'd lean toward lax, but it could be strict) and I get the ID Number. I would then display the ID Number on my media. Then you, liking what you're reading and wanting to support it, log into the Media Credit system, enter my ID Number, and your level of support. A dollar here, a dollar there. Perhaps the news org can present a small survey of areas they cover, and the donor can further direct their money with granularity. The system would keep track of your $20. Then every April 15th, anything left over would be divided among maybe the 10 most popular of your local media outlets, and your $20 is reset. There's a lot that can be fleshed out, and I'd love to see holes poked in it.

And like I said, this isn't a replacement for a capitalist business model. Just an augmentation. You can still subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and The Week. There's still pressure to remain relevant. It just shifts some of the purse strings more democratically, with some minimum of required support. Ideally, most of the public is actively interested in and voluntarily pays for accurate and meaningful reporting as a cultural norm. But lets face it, this isn't the direction we're headed, yet we still require accurate and meaningful reporting. Especially at the local level.

I do think we should force ALL publicly license content providers to provide equal time as was once the case, however.

My suggestion is not a solution to breaking news bubbles. I don't want to make people eat their vegetables, just make sure the vegetables are always available. The Fairness Doctrine is pretty much untenable these days. Even if we made it enforceable on private distribution mediums instead of only public broadcast spectrum, the pure growth of outlets makes enforcement daunting. Besides enforcement being untenable, I'm not sure I'd want such enforcement because it's a limiting factor on acceptable thought. It's better than only hearing a single side, for sure, but it provides for the illusion that you're hearing the complete story when you hear "both sides." What if there's three or four sides? You'd be leaving such arbitration to the government.

I do, however, think that the process of choosing where your $20 goes might have the effect of raising civic responsibility and cultural awareness of the value of independent reporting. That might have some bubble piercing value, but it's not really the goal.

We used to have a publically financed media called PBS and NPR. Damned if that hasn't lost so much public funding over the years that they're resorting to what are now being called "enhanced" for-profit ads, especially on PBS. Republicans especially want to cut federal money in a time of a federal high debt for what the see as liberal news outlets.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/budget-d ... d=12915626

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/should-npr- ... l-funding/

http://westernreservepublicmedia.org/fe ... unding.htm

I would beconcerned about local news providers like small town news print and medium size city on air broadcasters. Do they fall to the wayside as it is much easier to think of the more famous news outlets like the NYT's or Rush Limbaugh when it is time to write in your mandatory contribution. No I can see a dark side to this plan Vander.

woodchip wrote:I would beconcerned about local news providers like small town news print and medium size city on air broadcasters. Do they fall to the wayside as it is much easier to think of the more famous news outlets like the NYT's or Rush Limbaugh when it is time to write in your mandatory contribution. No I can see a dark side to this plan Vander.

we've already lost/outsourced most local news already, and I share your concerns. Can't see the Washington Post spending much time or effort covering Accomac County, VA, for instance. As it is, the local papers(twice weekly) have been taken over by Gannett, and coverage gets more and more out of touch with the locality.

I share the concerns of the OP, but am completely unsure how to improve matters without taking the risk of making them far worse. Woody's 'dark side', in other words......

woodchip wrote:I would beconcerned about local news providers like small town news print and medium size city on air broadcasters. Do they fall to the wayside as it is much easier to think of the more famous news outlets like the NYT's or Rush Limbaugh when it is time to write in your mandatory contribution.

Incumbent media outlets will obviously start with an advantage in all this, but I'm not sure how relevant this is since they already have an advantage in the current marketplace. A major point of the solution is support for independent local reporting. It would require a percentage of an individual's contribution stay local, as well as splitting between local outlets the contributions from those who didn't direct anything at the end of the year. So you'd get 25% (just for example) that's required to stay local, plus 100% from those that can't be bothered to direct the other 75%.

The way I see it, to be able to do any subsidy like this, it has to be democratically directed. So if the dittoheads insist on directing their 75% at Limbaugh, that's their choice. No be sure, there are going to be some national "haves" that make out like a bandit, but I don't necessarily think that's a bad trade off for the support local and independent media would receive. There can probably be some things that can be done in this regard. Like displaying a current total contributed on the contribution page, adding a bit of shame to the more bloated recipients.

I do see an issue where it can possibly accelerate media consolidation. A conglomerate purchasing more small local papers to profit from this system. Seems like something that can be limited though. Like restricting what is considered a local outlet. For example a conglomerate that owns outlets in multiple states couldn't be considered "local." A locally owned outlet that runs syndicated content is probably ok. It might even drive up the cost of syndicated content to the point where local content is more cost effective.

There would probably have to be some perfunctory rules regarding the direct lobbying of contributions to other outlets. It would be silly, ineffective, and it would probably create all kinds of inside jokes sidestepping it, but it should still be there. It should be left unsaid that a reader can and probably will contribute to a like minded outlet, but it's an initiative that should be left to the individual.

The devil is in the details, and this is all obviously impossible. But I think it's an interesting thought exercise to figure out a solution to rescue a necessary product from a failing business model.

if I'm understanding this right, the usual suspects would just run a national campaign for support, thusly, manipulating the voters like they already do.

No doubt. But the national players are already manipulating. National players may wind up with up to 75% of the benefit, but there's still a minimum of 25% that would be directed locally. (which would likely grow by those that don't participate since their contributions would default to local)

This is all a thought exercise. Let's change it to 50% local.

I sympathize, but don't see how this gets us from the status quo to something the least bit better.

Vander wrote:I've stated on this board a few times some of my issues with the media. They typically focus on it's capitalist nature and an incentive structure that doesn't favor more or better reporting. Everyone will have their own individual issues they perceive, but there are some things that everyone will likely agree on:

Local newspapers are struggling because people are reading it on the web. National media is shifting from more expensive investigative reporting to cheaper entertainment or opinion. Newsrooms are shrinking. Wolf Blitzer makes $5 Million a year to greet a spokesperson.

I have a solution. It's based on a method of funding political campaigns that I heard a while ago. Everyone is taxed, say, $10. They can then direct to which candidate that $10 goes. That's a ridiculous amount of money that candidates no longer have to go whoring for.

Reworking this idea toward the news media, what if everyone were taxed $20, and then were able to direct that $20 to whatever news enterprise they wanted? Maybe require at least $5 of the $20 go to local media outlets. The rest you can use to fund whatever interests you have. Anyone would be able to be funded, so you can dump all your money on a blogger if you want. The main restriction is that it would have to be some sort of news reporting media. Apathetic people who don't direct their money would have it all split between their local outlets. It's democratized public financing!

This wouldn't be a replacement for capitalist media, but it would help fund independent newsrooms with a bias toward local, and partially relieve some of the negative capitalist pressures and incentives that harm the news media.

What could possibly go wrong?

This hinges on the assumption that everyone will make an informed, intelligent and rational decision with their $20. People don't want their money going to everywhere -- they usually ask their friends to 'help' them make the decision. And help in this context usually means 'tell me what to do'.

I probably should've started this thread off with a manifesto. To define "better," you have to define both the goal of journalism and issues detracting from that goal that need to be challenged.

The goal is simple and not controversial: to have independent truth seeking chroniclers to better equip the citizenry with the information necessary for self government. They're needed at all levels, from the city to the county to the state to the nation to the world. If we're to make informed decisions, we need people informing us to realities at all of these levels.

What are the issues detracting from this goal? This is much more debatable, and everyone has their own thoughts. Share yours! Mine tend toward the stuff I repetitively gripe on here: A dysfunctional market and the failure of capitalist mechanisms to address an important societal need. This is mostly what my solution seeks to address. The obvious "disruption" of most previous news business models by digital hardly needs to be spelled out. But there's a more fundamental issue. How do you determine the market value of an important investigative report? The number of issues it sells or the ads in can contain? What if the topic is important but dull? Is it not worth reporting? How do you evaluate the supply of truths that should be exposed and the demand for their exposure? One might say the supply is endless, and the demand is shrinking. Topics and issues that require coverage are limitless and will always outpace commercial support. Taking solace in doing a public service doesn't put food on the table for an investigative reporter.

So shrinking newsrooms are happening and it has negative consequences that can't easily be put on a spreadsheet. What are the current solutions for funding? Sponsored content masquerading as news? Tracking people's every move to display highly personalized but more lucrative advertising? Waiting for a billionaire to altruistically rain money with no strings attached for the public good?

Using the government to help solve the issue is hard, as it brings up issues of totalitarian control of the media. That's why I think my solution is somewhat workable at least in theory. It uses the power of centralized government, but only to pool the capital and to bias distribution locally. It a democratic method for dispersing the capital. I don't wouldn't want some government entity deciding who can and can't receive the funding beyond some simple validation. No, it doesn't make people direct their contributions to effective reporting, and it doesn't make the reporters who receive the funding do a good job. It's like any democratic enterprise, you basically get out of it what you put into it. It's just a framework to be used, not a rigid set of rails to follow. I think even at its most ineffective, it still provides for an influx of funding to local news.

If anyone has made it this far through my rambling, thanks!

Vander wrote:...A dysfunctional market and the failure of capitalist mechanisms to address an important societal need.

This is one thing I argue about with my Libertarian leaning friends. First, lest acknowledge that corruption happens in both private and public institutions and that corruption damages a population proportional to the power it yields. Now, it drives me nuts when my "free market will fix everything" friends completely dismiss the value of our government filling in the gaps even amongst all the evidence to the contrary. People are not a means to an end, and the framework of capitalism puts profits above people in every case.