Comments on: How government money can corrupt the press: The story from Argentina

By: Separation of news and state? How government subsidies buoyed media » Nieman Journalism Lab

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:03:08 +0000

[...] — Last, make sure the help is content-neutral, like tax breaks and postal subsidies. (As evidence from other countries has shown, giving government too much leeway in who to help leads to unfortunate levels of government [...]

By: Cómo el dinero del gobierno puede corromper a la prensa: La historia argentina - Sala de Redacción

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:47:53 +0000

[...] El artículo original está en inglés, hemos publicado la primera parte en español. Para leerlo completo, por favor visitar la página del Nieman Lab: How government money can corrupt the press: The story from Argentina [...]

By: Jonathan Stray

Jonathan Stray — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:10:18 +0000

Marty wrote:

“… that is a sign it is not performing a function the utility of which exceeds its cost. … There are no great externalities or market failures or public goods issues here.”

It isn’t obvious to me that general interest news reporting is not, at least in some cases, a public good. It’s certainly non-rivalrous, and often non-excludable.

I am not necessarily arguing for market intervention. However, I think we have to face the fact that news organizations are not going to make money selling news. My understanding of history is that they never have — that’s why we had advertising.

The only way out that I can see for journalism is for media organizations to subsidize news with something else that they can do well.

Take, for example, Reuters. It collects high-end information for financial clients, which subsidizes the network for foreign correspondents who produce general news.

By: Obamacrats Eye Bailout of Print Media | Grammar Source

Obamacrats Eye Bailout of Print Media | Grammar Source — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:58:46 +0000

[...] watchdog goes to sleep and critical stories recede from the pages of the newspapers. This is what a study by the Neiman Journalism Lab [...]

By: Marty

Marty — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:53:59 +0000

If a product sold to the public cannot command sufficient market revenues to cover its costs (including necessary reinvestment), that is a sign it is not performing a function the utility of which exceeds its cost. Fairly simple, even for a J-school prof or graduate.

The media companies, news included, need to look at their business models and make changes to improve the value equation. If they can’t do it, they should die off and clear the ecological space for something that can.

There are no great externalities or market failures or public goods issues here, that require govt intervention. If they cannot provide something the public wants at a price people are willing to pay, they need to look at themselves, not get the govt to steal from that same public that doesn’t want what they’re selling.

By: Subsidized Journalism, Watered Down News?

Subsidized Journalism, Watered Down News? — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:31:10 +0000

[...] be resurrected given the latest circulation drops. America’s statesman would do well to read this study, which looks into media coverage in Argentina where the government provides a steady stream of [...]

By: You Get The . Info » Study: More Gov’t Funding Of The Press, Less Political Corruption Reporting – 1971th Edition

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:09:35 +0000

[...] as a government corruption watchdog. So it’s interesting to see a new study that found that the more government support the press gets, the less they covered government scandals. Of course, this is a correlation — so it’s entirely possible that governments that [...]

By: James

James — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:31:06 +0000

Too bad that Messrs Regan and Benton can not appreciate what liberal elitists they sound like.
Just because the BBC and NPR reflect your ideological philosophy, does not make them objective. As in, just because MSNBC kisses Obama’s…ring, makes it a news organization, while because Fox is critical of the administration, it is not a news organization.
The fact is that the media establishment has failed, and continues to fail, the American people. As much as that moves the country toward collectivism and statism, to the satisfaction of the liberal media elites, the people’s rejection of the liberal media should will make further incestuous relations between the government and the media a very difficult sell. As much of a blow to j-school ideology as it may be, the tv ratings and latest circulation data should be telling some people that their indoctrination programs aren’t selling outside of academia.

By: Michael Paterakis

Michael Paterakis — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:00:51 +0000

If only you knew about Greece.

By: Joshua Benton

Joshua Benton — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:42:50 +0000

Hey Tom: I don’t disagree one bit with your main argument, and personally, I’m significantly more pro-public investment in journalism than most journalists. I’d love an American BBC (or, better yet, an Ohio BBC, a Louisiana BBC, a Texas BBC, etc.).

I see the paper’s value not in opposing public funding but in making the point that, if there’s going to be public funding, it needs to be done in a smart way. There’s a difference between a government-funded operation (BBC, CBC, etc.) and government payments to private news organizations (i.e. direct subsidies to newspapers and the like). And there’s another difference between government payments that are determined by some objective rule (say, audience size, or whatever) and government payments that are open to the political whims of the current administration (i.e. Argentina).

Personally, despite your hopes and mine, I think government support for journalism is a long shot in this country. But if it were to happen, I suspect it’d be most likely to take the form of government subsidies to existing news organizations, not the creation of some BBC-like entity. And that opens up a whole different set of questions and potential problems.

By: Tom Regan

Tom Regan — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:10:20 +0000

By the way, the problem with the Downie/Schudson report is that it’s five-miles wide and 1 inch deep and talks about stuff that people were talking about at ONA conferences two years ago and that J-Lab at American University is already experimenting on.

By: Tom Regan

Tom Regan — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:56:30 +0000

The obvious rejoinder to this column is an alphabet of great media organizations: ABC, BBC and CBC. The government-funded TV, radio and Websites of the Australian, British and Canadian Broadcasting Corporations are among the best in the world (the way these reporters question politicians make the hosts of Meet the Press, This Week, et al, look like a bunch of pre-schoolers)and almost completely government funded. (I’d add Al Jazeera here as well, which is largely funded by the ruler of Qatar.)

And as someone who had more things I’ve written killed because it might “upset the advertiser” than anything I ever wrote about the government, I smell a red herring.

The problem is that the moment the media hears “government money,” they run around yelling ‘The sky is falling, the sky is falling.” Well, the sky is falling, but it’s not the government’s fault. Ultimately, it’s the way you would use government money that would make the difference.

You could do it arms length, as in Canada. Or a dozen other ways.

But it’s not an automatic evil – there are too many examples that prove that it can be done, if it’s done in the right way.

A true story that happened to me during my Nieman year in 91-92. During a brown bag lunch at the Kennedy School, I was sitting next to a very prominent conservative politician from Canada who had been one of the leaders of the movement to cutback on government money to the CBC. He recognized me as a journalist from Canada and leaned over and said, “I never knew how good we had it with the CBC. It really is the best.”

Anhere in the US, the government money that NPR receives (the whole single-digit amount) doesn’t seem to stop them from regularly whacking the government upside of the dead.