In matters of information and culture, governments in the United States have generally provided financial support only to those sources and styles that no longer appeal to popular audiences but still appeal to elite tastes, even if the elites are more affluent than those who get their information and culture without subsidy. Thus, when a jazz venue was added to Lincoln Center, you knew jazz was on its last legs as popular music. Also on its last legs, suddenly, and seeking some kind of bailout are local newspapers.
The newspapers argue that they have a critical role in investigating and counteracting the disinformation provided by the powerful, political and otherwise, in their own interest. They would have more of a point if the research behind a typical newspaper article, after all the staff cuts, didn’t consist of a press release issued by someone with the money and motivation to have a public relations staff, along with some balancing quotes from some usual suspects. “Balanced” reporting today consists of “he said she said” not “he said and we looked into it and here are the facts.” Were the news media to rely on government support, moreover, it is doubtful it would retain credibility as a check on the government-provided information. There are those who believe that even now newspapers’ dependence on automobile and real estate advertisements limited their objectivity in the housing bubble and SUV fad. The newspapers, however, are not without value and not without a point, particularly since many “internet news” sites generally merely redistribute newspaper content for free. So I would like to propose a “bailout” that does not involve a subsidy.
First, to ensure a source of ongoing revenue and make it easier for newspapers to charge for online content, I propose a temporary and provisional anti-trust exemption to allow them to work as a single entity through non-profit organizations, for the purpose of soliciting and billing advertising and subscriptions. There is a precedent for this: they act as a single entity in some ways for news gathering via the Associated Press.
A U.S. Newspapers Inc. might be able to compete more successfully with companies such as Monster.com, AutoTrader and others for what used to be classified advertising — by also offering a national audience, plus print for an additional fee. It could also could offer online placement and print placement across the country to national advertisers, the way national television networks do. This exemption would recognize that newspapers are far from a monopoly for those that wish to advertise. They have a host of alternatives if the newspapers’ price is too high.
As for subscriptions, those who are unwilling to pay for things will not have them in the end, because no one will produce them. But, having been spoiled by the internet, I am no longer willing to settle for just one news source, nor am I willing to pay the equivalent of ten traditional newspaper subscription fees to get access to all ten.
What I am willing to do is pay a fee, somewhat lower than a traditional fee since the lack of paper is a huge cost savings, for everyone in my household to have unlimited access to newspaper articles in general. All of them. The newspapers in general would have to divide up my flat payment, which would be a national regulated monopoly price, based on the number of articles from each publication that members of my household had read in a given period. After all, electric utilities do as much based on whose electricity I happen to be using at a particular time. A monopoly utility, local news would be similarly treated as such.
Obviously newspapers would have to get together and agree among themselves for this to work. The Peoria Journal Star might fear that local residents interested in national and business news would breeze right past its portal and read articles from the New York Times or Washington Post, which would then collect the majority of the subscription payments. The New York Times, with its historically more affluent customers, might object to charging the same subscription fee as the Peoria Journal Star. My response: work it out folks, before you go after my money. And not everyone would have to join. You can make it on your own, do so.
What about the current financial crisis? Rather than having the general public give money from the newspapers, I would have the general public buy something from the newspapers — their entire archives through 2006, in searchable internet form, on behalf of the Library of Congress and National Archives.
With the people having paid for this, it would be available on line and for free to historians, those writing historical fiction, and those seeking background for the discussion of current events — including new media. Everyone would have access to everyone’s “morgue” in other words. Which is just as well because reading the typical newspaper article one wonders if journalists have access to their own newspaper’s morgues, as they continually forget history and we are generally condemned to repeat it.
The mass digitization of all newspaper content could put a lot of people to work in the short run, and might teach some unemployed real estate and mortgage brokers some useful skills. Like every other “stimulus” program (like our whole economy) in could be funded by debt in the short run, but in this case a special tax — on all media — could be used to pay the debt back. Because all media, including new internet-only publications, would then have access to those archives in one mass mega “morgue.”
Think about it. Writing a novel or work of history on a particular year? Read tens of thousands of newspaper articles from that year all over the U.S. to see what was happening. Interested in a particular subject? Read all the articles across the country on that subject, or for a more specific subject, go back 100 years for a selection of communities including one’s own. Having that available forever is worth something.
Newspapers might see their archives as something they can sell individually, and some publications have been charging for archived stories while providing each day’s current news for free. But publications can only sell their own little piece of history individually, not the whole thing, and only over time, not today. The federal government could offer a much, much lower prices — but up front.
I’m willing to pay for newspapers, in other words, but I’m would want to drive a hard bargain.