By John Bebow - May 14, 2009
That was one of many provocative questions and ideas to come out of this week's ReThinkNews summit at Michigan State University.
It's no secret that many hard-working Michigan journalists are struggling to keep their jobs as their publications are struggling to keep the doors open.
The summit's panel of more than a dozen veteran journalists, online news entrepreneurs, and academics tossed around many thoughts on how to preserve a healthy "Fourth Estate" when the business model is crumbling.
The News Millage is one approach. It would work something like this… As traditional publications fold in Michigan communities, would county-wide consumers be willing to tax themselves to support a non-profit newsroom? An effective staff of up to a dozen smart, hustling local journalists could be had for $1-2 million a year, based on the roughest back-of-the-napkin calculations. That's arguably cheaper than many other local government services, such as libraries, or recreation and parks departments. A News Millage would raise all kinds of ethical questions about the independence of news gathering. At the same time, it would require local journalists to be public servants in the truest sense. Frankly, figuring out the rules of the new game would be one of the fun parts!
Would you support a news millage in your community?
Or similarly, would you support a sort of United Way check-off system in which local employers, employees, and philanthropists underwrote the costs of small community news-gathering staffs?
To listen in on those and other thoughts from the news summit, check out the summit blog or watch the televised replay of the day's events.
6 Comments
I would not vote for a subsidized community newspaper. It seems to me to be a violation of the First Amendment: freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
The reporter could not be supposed to be un-biased supported by tax money.
That is the problem with reporters and media now. Facts and opinions are blended with hidden bias. People have been getting wise and rejecting blends for straight liberal or conservative reporting.
This web site is supposed to be about fresh ideas so it is in that spirit that I welcome the prospect of a $2 million/year subsidization for journalism to be called a "news millage". I do believe there are skillful journalists out there who could produce a net-benefit to the public on a range of issues we need to make decisions about. I use the term "net-benefit" because journalists, being human, will have to struggle with their own biases. We see this in art: Claude Monet and Pablo Picasso will each see a pond of water lillies differently than a color film photographer and a black and white digital photographer. All consumers of this subsidized product would have to understand that and still be willing to pay for it. Its an idea, and let's be thankful people are thinking.
That much said, though, Neil makes a fair point that would likely make the news millage an uphill battle. I recall the stories I've read of how President Franklin Roosevelt liked to stack his cabinet full of people who hated each other intellectually. As I have read these stories: he felt that only by pitting one cabinet member against another cabinet member could he get the best picture of the truth at the momente. In other words, he discarded the concept of objectivity (as is sometimes asserted by the journalism profession) and let his people argue from their passions. The objective journalism that would be possible under this arrangment may not sell well. Passion does: as we see in the careers of Keith Olberman and Rush Limbaugh, for example.
I must confess, though, that I am disappointed by the list of "smart people" linked to this effort. I don't doubt the smartness of the people but lament an apparent absence of conservative thinking in everything I can glean from the blog and video. Let's face it folks: Conservatism is a "tougher read".
It is ironic because Michigan State University (which is one of 4 where I was a student), was where the conservative thinker Russell Kirk taught. I am not sure what his status was on the faculty and I don't think he was made very comfortable there. But it turns out that he is widely regarded as the man who made American conservatism coherent enough for it to be "branded" by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan later on. If anyone who visits this site is interested, here is a link to some of Russell Kirk's writing:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL86.cfm
To conclude with an anecdote: There is a place slightly north of Ypsilanti where I can hear "Car Talk" on four different publicly-funded radio stations: WUOM, WEMU, WKAR and WDET on the same Saturday . All four of these stations are very, very closely aligned with liberal orthodoxy that originates from publicly funded universities. There is not even a pretense of objective journalism in any of the local or national stories that are run. All the stories are built upon an intellectually false version of liberal thinking that makes them hard to believe. Each subsidixed journalist will have to demonstrate deep understanding of European and American liberal and conservative thought. I would want them selected to present a balanced point of view and I'd want writing samples. If this United Way subisidized journalism idea can make the sale, and then perform on an objective journalism contract, then I will be a buyer.
No. Newspapers and news media in general need to explore more entrepreneurial ideas, develop a spirit of innovation and learn to right their businesses like other industries have done when new technologies or economic changes threaten their existence. I hope fellow Spartans at the ReThinkNews summit generate provocative questions about how to embrace new technologies such as e-newspapers, mobile delivery and emerging channels like Twitter. New subscription and business models embracing technology should be used to subsidize the print version for those still wanting it. If this happens and you still want to try to garner a larger audience, then maybe mills could be passed for county-wide high-speed access and more workstations at public facilities. This strategy would work better to improve the quality of life and create more jobs in Michigan in the long run.
I don't miss newsprint. When I was younger, and my family was travelling close to the coast, there were still paper manufacturers along Michigan's lakeshore and they created the worst stench ever to foul my nose. It was horrible, I don't know how anyone could have lived around such a factory.
The model of newsprint delivering the news to households is a really poor model. Not green, not sustainable, tremendous waste, difficult to recycle, not timely, not easily searchable, not easily indexed, not easily transmitted to others in a timely basis. Why destroy millions of acres of forest in order to create paper for news delivery?
Recently I was at the opening ceremonies for RCM Technologies. In addition to Terri Lynn Land, Michigan's Secretary of State, Brad MacLean the CEO of a company called Creative Byline ( http://www.creativebyline.com/ ) was one of the panelist for a discussion session. Creative Byline is one example of a new model for employing writers and reporters by providing a portal to match content creators with content consumers and publishers.
In context it is interesting to see that which creates the problem is also that used to create the solution. In a word, technology.
This has to be a joke! How could such a self serving thought be verablize.
Some of the comments to this proposal may be missing the point. I read this article differently, though I was not at the ReThinkNews event. It seems to me that there is a legitimate need for investigative reporting in our democracy. We have to weigh the drawback in the inevitable bias in the reporting against the drawback in not knowing about that which is newsworthy in a democracy at all. There are times when both the Left and Right collude to obscure and/or hide facts from the public. That's the story I'll pay to read.
Post a Comment