Journalism's Shift

So let me get this straight. You want to take money from the U.S. Federal Government, the biggest, most corrupt bureaucracy in the world, and dole it out to struggling media outlets, often considered the political watchdogs to the federal entity? Please. The whole of this idea is a sloppy, contradictory mess. It's certainly not worth a second glance.
A recent report from Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism is advocating that exact idea. According to the report, local public-affairs journalism outlets are dying out, for a variety of reasons. They want the IRS or Congress to, among other things, create, "... [a] national Fund for Local News ... with money the Federal Communications Commission now collects from or could impose on telecom users, television and radio broadcast licensees, or Internet service providers and administered in open competition through state Local News Fund Councils."

...

I'll give you a moment to let that sink in.

...

Are we good? In the back, are you good? Ok, let's move on.

In essence, the authors of the report want to take money already used by the federal government to essentially bail out failing local news outlets (either that, or let's just raise taxes. Hell or high water, we lose). The authors, and other small-time and non-profit journalists who have jumped on board, point out that the government has produced other entities that operate in the same manner, such as the nation Endowment for the Arts, the Humanities, etc. Still, journalism has always been (and I'm going to shoot myself for advocating this point) a capitalistic, free-market operation. Newspaper are private companies- allowing the government to provide legitimate funding for their operation opens the door to the slippery slope argument of eventual government control of media outlets. This has been, and always should be, the antithesis of the press in American society.

Even proponents of the idea admit that there are serious risks. Joel Kramer at Inside MinnPost says that, “The funding would not be for specific stories, but for broader, longer-range innovations in newsgathering and organizational sustainability. Even so, it’s easy to imagine that that process could become highly politicized.”

So to summarize: We're going to take money from an already shaky, rebuilding economic system, give it to press and media outlets as a free handout, and pretend like nothing illegitimate is going on. Karl Marx would be proud.

Ok, I'm done with my ranting and raving.

The report did contain a lot of informative information. A significant portion was dedicated to an analysis of how journalism has changed and evolved in recent years do to a shifting market, changing public opinions and cultural principles, evolutions in media and technology, and so on. My newspaper advisor, Professor MaryAnn Pearson, is also researching this topic. I recently wrote an article for The Banner about how the changing trends in journalism are affecting both professional and student journalists alike.

"You really do need a combination of skills to work as a journalist," said Pearson.

She also said that, despite the large influx of Web-based writing and the massive spread of information, newspapers do not appear to be dying out like they were a few years ago.

"Journalism is landing on its feet," said Pearson.

So I plug my own work shamelessly. Bite me.

http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/cs/ContentServer/jrn/1212611716674/page/1212611716651/JRNSimplePage2.htm

http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/cs/ContentServer?pagename=JRN/Render/DocURL&binaryid=1212611716626

http://www.minnpost.com/insideminnpost/2009/10/19/12627/a_modest_proposal_for_federal_funding_of_journalism#