Timothy B. Lee, founder of The Washington Post’s blog The Switch discusses his approach to reporting at the intersection of technology and policy. He covers how to make tech concepts more accessible; the difference between blogs and the news; the importance of investigative journalism in the tech space; whether paywalls are here to stay; Jeff Bezos’ recent purchase of The Washington Post; and the future of print news.

Download

Related Links

• Here are eight ways investing in Bitcoins could go horribly wrongn, Lee
• Blind advocates: Hollywood lobbying threatens deal for accessible books, Lee
• New Job, Lee

In his syndicated column yesterday, Leonard Pitts, Jr. bemoaned the decision by the New Orleans Times-Picayune to cut back its print edition to three days a week, and attacked the sentiment, most recently expressed by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who might herself been quoting Matt Drudge, that the Internet allows “every citizen to be a reporter and take on the powers that be.”

Pitts immediately attacks the comment on the basis of its source, Palin. Then he wanders further from the point by conjuring the truly unpleasant conditions under which reporters, Picayune staffers no doubt among them, labored to ensure news got out in the weeks following Hurricane Katrina’s devastation of the Gulf Coast.

One night I had the distinct honor of sleeping in an RV in the parking lot of the Sun Herald in Gulfport, Miss., part of an army of journalists who had descended on the beleaguered city to help its reporters get this story told. The locals wore donated clothes and subsisted on snack food. They worked from a broken building in a broken city where the rotten egg smell of natural gas lingered in the air and homes had been reduced to debris fields, to produce their paper. Shattered, cut off from the rest of the world, people in the Biloxi-Gulfport region received those jerry-rigged newspapers, those bulletins from the outside world, the way a starving man receives food.

Yet nothing in this rather self-important prose tells us what’s so irreplaceable about printed newspapers as a platform for news delivery. Instead, we get a straw man.

Palin’s sin–and she is hardly alone in this–is to consider professional reporters easily replaceable by so-called citizen journalists like Drudge. Granted, bloggers occasionally originate news. Still, I can’t envision Matt Drudge standing his ground in a flooded city to report and inform.

One can say the same thing about Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann or Wolf Blitzer. Yet, come the next disaster, there’s no reason not to expect the same dedication from a handful of individuals who are driven to place themselves in the middle of an adverse, if not outright dangerous, event just to document first-hand what is happening. Only this time they have the cheap video cameras, battery operated laptops and cellphones with wireless Internet connections. The news will get out.

What Pitts actually is lamenting is the end of the monopoly of institutional media. Big media won’t go away, and will certainly carve out a large space on the Internet, but it’s losing the ability to define news and confer legitimacy on a newsgathering enterprise. Pitts equates the loss of newspapers with the loss of skilled reporting. This fallacy needs to be called out because it fuels the contention , voiced by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, Sen. John Kerry, and former Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell, among other political leaders, that the government should prop up failing newspapers so they can compete against Internet news outlets. To his credit, Pitts never goes this far, but his arguments contain an unspoken invitation for others to do so.

At the end of his column Pitts says he doubts that “citizen journalists” have the credibility, knowledge or training of their newspaper or broadcast counterparts. Here, it helps to remember that we journalists did not truly join the professional class until the 1970s. Carl Bernstein, one-half of the reporting team that inspired a generation of j-school recruits, didn’t finish college. Peter Jennings, perhaps the best Middle East TV correspondent of his time, was a high school drop-out. What they did have, was that unique talent to sniff out news and follow a story where it led them.

My first boss at my first salaried reporting job, as old school a newspaper editor you would find, would give job applicants a convoluted press release to rewrite. The aim was not to test copy editing, speed, grammar or style, but to see if his prospective staffer could pull out the actual lead. More than anything, he valued and appreciated a reporter’s nose for news. To him this was the innate journalistic talent; everything else could be taught.

Newspaper companies don’t define news or reporters. News is timely, topical, compelling and significant. A reporter is anyone who can mine a topic-from something sweeping as global economy trends to as parochial as local city government-and communicate information that meets this criteria. And, yes, anyone can be one.

I’ve been so busy trying to cover breaking developments related to Washington’s new efforts to “save journalism” (FTC) and steer the “future of media” (FCC) — see all my recent essays & papers here — that I forgot to do a formal book review of the book that is partially responsible for whipping policymakers into a lather about this issue: The Death and Life of American Journalism, the media-takeover manifesto by the neo-Marxist media scholar Robert W. McChesney and Nation editor John Nichols. Their book is horrifying in its imperial ambitions since it invites the government become the High Lord and Protector of the Fourth Estate. [For an in-depth look at all of McChesney’s disturbing views on these issues, see: “Free Press, Robert McChesney & the “Struggle” for Media.”] Anyway, I put together a formal review of the book for City Journal.  It’s online here and I’ve also pasted it down below.

A Media Welfare State?

by Adam Thierer

Imagine a world of “post-corporate” newsrooms, where the state serves as the primary benefactor of the Fourth Estate. Billions flow from bureaucracies to media entities and individual journalists in the name of sustaining a “free press.” And this new media welfare state is funded by steep taxes on our mobile phones, broadband connections, and digital gadgets.

Sound Orwellian? Well, it’s the blueprint for a press takeover drawn up by Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols in their new book, The Death and Life of American Journalism. McChesney, the prolific neo-Marxist media scholar who teaches at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Nichols, a journalist with The Nation, aren’t shy about their intentions. Along with Free Press, the absurdly misnamed regulatory activist group they co-founded, McChesney and Nichols outline a self-described “radical” agenda for what they hope will become a media “revolution.” And, shockingly, some folks in the Obama administration are listening.

McChesney and Nichols model their $35 billion annual “public works” program for the press after the Works Progress Administration of the New Deal era. Their media WPA would include a “News AmeriCorps” for out-of-work journalists, a “Citizenship News Voucher” to funnel taxpayer support to struggling media entities, a significant expansion of postal subsidies, a massive new subsidy for journalism schools, corporate welfare for newspapers sufficient to pay 50 percent of the salaries of all “journalistic employees,” and more. Using its growing lobbying muscle in Washington, Free Press promotes the McChesney-Nichols plan under the framework of a “National Journalism Strategy,” a veritable industrial policy for the press that resembles a Soviet-style five-year plan.

McChesney, Nichols, and the media reformistas at Free Press rest their case for “massive public intervention” into the news business on several dubious assertions: commercial journalism is dying, and nothing can save it; news has always been a “public good” and would be better provided through noncommercial means; and America has a long history of public subsidies for the press—even the Founders would endorse an expansive role for the state to “save the news.”

That last claim is perhaps the most audacious. McChesney and Nichols spin a rich revisionist history and ask us to believe that the Founders—especially Jefferson and Madison—were practically media Marxists, enthralled with public subsidization of the press. They base that claim entirely on the existence of postal subsidies. Apparently, because we’ve had reduced rates for media mail since the Republic’s early days, we should believe that the Founders would welcome a wholesale government takeover of the press. But a modest postal subsidy for press materials doesn’t suggest that the Founders believed government should be micromanaging or massively subsidizing media. The language of the First Amendment—“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” confirms that. Having rebelled, in part, against British restrictions on free speech, the Founders’ prime directive toward the press was not subsidization, but freedom from state meddling.

Even if it is true that news has some public-good qualities, it does not necessarily follow that the state must or should fund it. Indeed, the entire history of American media belies this argument: entertainment, journalistic, and informational media of all varieties have primarily relied on private, commercial funding for over 200 years—particularly through advertising, which rewards publishers for attracting and holding on to audiences. Once one embraces the fallacy that only the state can produce high-quality public goods, sweeping calls for government intervention inevitably follow.

It’s certainly true that we’re in the midst of a major media revolution, and that many operators are struggling to cope with intensifying competition, digitization, declining advertising budgets, and fragmenting audiences. Pundits and policymakers wonder what the future holds for many traditional news providers or whether they’ll even have one. But McChesney and Nichols seize on such anxieties to suggest that nothing short of a government press takeover is required. In true Rahm Emanuel-like fashion, Free Press insists, “We have a crisis. We have an historic opportunity. We can’t let either go to waste.”

Who pays the bill and how much will the takeover cost? McChesney and Nichols take a remarkably cavalier attitude about it: “The money must be spent and we will worry about where it comes from later.” Such “we’re-all-dead-in-the-long-run” reasoning seems to be the dominant philosophy in Washington policy circles these days. But the estimated $35 billion annual price tag for a “public works” program for the press should give us pause. Moreover, like every other corporate-welfare program (think agriculture subsidies), a journalistic welfare state would no doubt grow in scope and cost over time.

McChesney and Nichols suggest several potential funding sources for the program, many of which would end up burdening commercial media providers in order to subsidize their noncommercial/public media competitors. They advocate a four-part tax plan that would include: a 5 percent tax on new purchases of consumer electronics, which they estimate would bring in $4 billion a year; a 3 percent tax on monthly ISP & mobile-service bills (estimated at $6 billion a year); a 2 percent sales tax on advertising (estimated at $5 to $6 billion a year); and a 7 percent tax on broadcasters’ spectrum licenses (estimated to sap another $3-6 billion a year from an already reeling industry). Free Press has enthusiastically endorsed these proposals. In recent FCC testimony, managing director Craig Aaron offered specific revenue projections for the creation of a “Public Media Trust Fund.”

What McChesney, Nichols, and Free Press essentially advocate is a radical form of media redistributionism—with struggling private entities and others forced to fund public or non-commercial media outlets. What these regulatory advocates seek is not so much a bailout for the familiar private media that has served America so well for two centuries, but rather a massive wealth transfer from one class of media to another, with the stipulation—which they repeat numerous times—that state-subsidized entities are to forgo private advertising revenues, copyright protection, and any affiliation with corporate parents. These restrictions are an essential part of their push for a “post-corporate,” government-controlled press. Indeed, it would virtually make such a press a self-fulfilling prophecy, since copyright laws and advertising have been core ingredients of a successful private media system in the U.S. They’re also why we haven’t had to resort to massive public subsidies for media, as many other nations have.

McChesney and Nichols want us to believe that they (or the state) wouldn’t play favorites with public funds. But it’s hard to take such claims at face value when they dedicate their book to liberal darling Bill Moyers (who has keynoted Free Press “media reform” conferences), and when every page of their book drips with derision toward commercial media. In reality, McChesney, Nichols, and Free Press are out to destroy the private provision of media in America, but they’ve softened up their recent rhetoric to cloak their true aims. In their 2002 book, Our Media, Not Theirs: The Democratic Struggle Against Corporate Media, they were more direct, arguing for “the need to promote an understanding of the urgency to assert public control over the media.” And during a 2009 interview with the Canadian-based “Socialist Project,” McChesney confessed that “the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists,” and noted that, “unless you make significant changes in the media, it will be vastly more difficult to have a revolution.”

Similarly, The Death and Life of American Journalism concludes by noting that “We have responded in a time of crisis not with tinkering reforms but with revolution.” Indeed they have, but what’s more shocking is the warm reception their calls for “public control” and “revolution” are receiving within the Obama administration.

The Federal Trade Commission is holding a workshop series called “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” The agency released a 47-page discussion draft entitled “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism,” which reads like the Cliff’s Notes for the McChesney-Nichols book and Free Press’s National Journalism Strategy. The draft cites the authors over a dozen times and reproduces their proposals almost verbatim. McChesney was recently invited to deliver a major address at an FTC event on these issues. Meanwhile, Susan DeSanti, the FTC’s Director of Policy Planning, who spearheads the agency’s “media reinvention” effort, has publicly praised McChesney and Nichols’ “excellent book” despite its call for radical steps that would hobble private media and impose crushing taxes to subsidize public, state-blessed media. Isn’t the FTC supposed to safeguard marketplace competition and innovation? Finally, the Federal Communications Commission is conducting an open proceeding of its own on the “Future of Media.” So far, it has featured plenty of talk of expanded public media and “public-interest” programs.

Perhaps most insultingly, McChesney, Nichols, Free Press, the FTC, and the FCC all ignore the burdens on private media operators that they themselves have had a hand in creating or preserving. For years, the media marketplace has been smothered with layers of red tape that has hindered operators’ ability to respond promptly to new developments. In particular, a crazy-quilt of media ownership regulations has artificially restricted business models from developing that might have saved many news organizations from the fate that McChesney and Nichols now decry. Stunningly, the FCC and FTC show no sign of willingness to loosen those chains, especially with Free Press and other media reform groups aggressively hounding them and congressional lawmakers to impose even more regulation.

It remains to be seen whether the Obama administration implements the McChesney/Nichols blueprint for a media welfare state. But their book clearly draws the battle lines for the future of media—and provides a fresh reminder, for those of us who still care about our fundamental First Amendment freedoms and a truly free and independent press, what it is we’re fighting for.

_________________

Adam Thierer is president of the Progress & Freedom Foundation in Washington, D.C. (www.pff.org) and the coauthor, with Brian Anderson, of A Manifesto for Media Freedom (Encounter Books, 2008).

So, I’m sitting here at today’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC) workshop, “Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” and several panelists have argued that private “professional” media is toast, not just because of the rise of the Net and digital media, but also because the inherent cross-subsidy that advertising has traditionally provided is drying up.  It very well could be the case that both statements are true and that private media operators are in some trouble because of it. But what nobody seems to be acknowledging is that our government is currently on the regulatory warpath against advertising and that this could have profound impact on the outcome of this debate.

As Berin Szoka and I noted in a recent paper, “The Hidden Benefactor: How Advertising Informs, Educates & Benefits Consumers,” the FTC, the FCC, the FDA, and Congress are all considering, or already imposing, a host of new rules that will seriously affect advertising markets.  This article in AdAge today confirms this:

The advertising industry is heading for a “tsunami” of regulation and is at a “tipping point” of greatly increased scrutiny, warned a panel on social media and privacy at the American Advertising Federation conference here [in Orlando].

The reason this is so important for the ongoing debate about the future of media and journalism is because, as Berin and I argued in our paper:

an attack on advertising is tantamount to an attack on media itself, and media is at a critical point of technological change. As we have pointed out repeatedly, the vast majority of media and content in this country is supported by commercial advertising in one way or another–particularly in the era of “free” content and service.

So, before policymakers give up on the commercial media that have been supported by advertising in America for generations (or centuries!), they might want to pause for just a moment as they skip down the Yellow Brick Road to a “post-corporate,” taxpayer-supported media Oz to ask just how much damage increased regulation is doing to advertising revenues for private media companies and the journalists and editors they employ.  Anyone who believes the Wizard behind the curtain (politicians and unelected bureaucrats) won’t call the shots in that Oz fantasyland is just kidding themselves. So perhaps if policymakers stopped strangling advertising, it could continue to fund reporting, creativity and innovation.

I’ll be doing some live-Tweeting from today’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC) workshop, “Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” This workshop will feature various experts discussing the FTC’s 47-page “staff discussion draft,” which outlines “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism.”

Looks like most people will just be using the #FTC hashtag and perhaps #journalism as well.  My Twitter handle is @AdamThierer and I think @BerinSzoka will be here later, too.

Here’s some additional background on why this debate is so controversial:

• Growing Opposition to FTC “Saving Journalism” Media Takeover Blueprint, by Adam Thierer, June 9, 2010
• FTC Draft Plan to “Save Journalism” Drawing Scrutiny; Raising Concern, by Adam Thierer, June 4, 2010

Just a reminder that tomorrow the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will be hosting the 3rd workshop in its ongoing event series, “Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” This workshop will feature various experts discussing the FTC’s 47-page “staff discussion draft,” which outlines “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism.” In these two recent essays, I discussed the controversy surrounding some of the recommendations in that discussion draft:

• Growing Opposition to FTC “Saving Journalism” Media Takeover Blueprint, by Adam Thierer, June 9, 2010
• FTC Draft Plan to “Save Journalism” Drawing Scrutiny; Raising Concern, by Adam Thierer, June 4, 2010

According to this press release announcing the event,”The workshop is free and open to the public, but space is limited and attendees will be admitted on a first-come basis. The workshop will be held at: The National Press Club, 549 14th Street NW, 13th Floor, Washington, DC. Members of the public and press who wish to participate but who cannot attend can view a live webcast.  A link will be available on the day of the workshop at: http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/index.shtml.”

Unless I am missing something, the FTC has still not posted an agenda or list of speakers, which is a bit strange. But apparently Rick Edmonds of the Poynter Institute will be participating. He’s got a nice piece up over at Poynter Online (“FTC Future-of-Journalism Inquiry Wraps Up With Little Momentum for Major Intervention“) summarizing some of what he’ll say tomorrow. I particularly liked his conclusion, which echoes the call Berin Szoka and I have made for allowing continuing marketplace evolution and experimentation:

Right now is a great time, though, for letting nature, creative destruction and innovation take their course. Will newspapers and other traditional media recommit to an adequate news effort and find new revenue streams as advertising budgets continue to move to all things digital?  Which of the start-ups will demonstrate financial stability and success with news audiences and marketers?  With these free market dynamics playing out at warp speed, later is the better time for deciding whether government invention is needed and if so, what kind.

Amen, brother.  [For more background about what the FTC and FCC have been up to on this front, see this ongoing series list of essays about, “Should Government Bailout Media, Subsidize the Press & Seek to “Save Journalism”?]

As I pointed out here last week, the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) recently released 47-page document outlining “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism” has been raising eyebrows in many different quarters. Even though it is just a “discussion draft” and the agency hasn’t formally endorsed any of the recommendations in it yet, the sweeping scope and radical nature of many of the proposals in the document has already raised the blood pressure for many folks. It doesn’t help that the document reads like the CliffsNotes for the recent media-takeover manifesto, The Death and Life of American Journalism, by the neo-Marxist media scholar Robert W. McChesney and Nation editor John Nichols. Their book is horrifying in its imperial ambitions since it invites the government become the High Lord and Protector of the Fourth Estate. [For an in-depth look at all of McChesney’s disturbing views on these issues, see: “Free Press, Robert McChesney & the “Struggle” for Media.”]

The FTC’s seeming infatuation with McChesney’s proposals has many rightly concerned about where exactly the Obama Administration’s FTC (and FCC) may be taking us in the name of “saving journalism.”  In an editorial this week, Investors Business Daily worries that the feds are “Seizing The News Business“ and wonders “why, as the administration contemplates a federal takeover of their business, [there is] such thundering silence” from journalists and media executive themselves.  The good news, however, is that a recent survey found plenty of skepticism among news executives regading government subsidies and regulatory meddling in their business. According to this April survey by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism in association with the American Society of News Editors (ASNE) and the Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA), revealed that, “Fully 75% of all news executives surveyed—and 88% of newspaper executives—said they had ’serious reservations,’ or the highest level of concern, about direct subsidies from the government.” A smaller percentage (only 46%) had serious reservations about tax credits for news organizations, then again, only 13% said they “would welcome such funding” and just 6% said they were “enthusiastic” about it.

And now there’s this new survey by Rasmussen Reports which finds that average Americans find some of the FTC’s proposed recommendations pretty silly:

• 84% oppose a 5% tax on the purchase of consumer electronic items such as computers, I-pads and Kindles to help support newspapers and traditional journalism.
• 74% oppose a 3% tax on monthly cell phone bills to help support newspapers and traditional journalism.
• 76% oppose placing an additional tax on internet news sites to help support newspapers and traditional journalism.
• 71% oppose the government creating a taxpayer-funded program that would hire and pay young reporters to work for newspapers around the country.

Those are pretty lopsided numbers, but I don’t find those results all that surprising.  These FTC recommendations, which were pulled almost verbatim from the McChesney-Nichols media takeover manifesto, don’t past the laugh test with most Americans.  Seriously, next time you see someone whip out their smartphone, ask them if they’d be willing to pay a 5% tax on it to funnel money into an FCC- or FTC-led corporate welfare program for favored media entities.  You won’t find many takers.

The FTC still has time to right the ship, of course. It will be interesting to see if someone high up in the Obama Administration gets control of this situation before it gets completely out of hand. It’s fairly clear from those surveys that their is little appetite among those within the news business or among its consumers for the sort of radical recommendations that the FTC sketched out it is “reinventing journalism” blueprint. Let’s just hope the Obama Administration still listens to common sense and is ready to reject a media marketplace takeover.

Further Reading :

• FTC Draft Plan to “Save Journalism” Drawing Scrutiny; Raising Concern, by Adam Thierer, June 4, 2010
• PFF’s Mega-Filing in the FCC’s “Future of Media” Proceeding, by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, May 5, 2010
• The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 5: Media Bailouts & Welfare for Journalists, by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, April 30, 2010
• The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 3: Media Vouchers, by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, April 14, 2010
• Steve Forbes on Free Press & Coming “Chavez-Style Media Crackdown”, by Adam Thierer, March 2010
• The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 1: Taxing Devices & Networks to Subsidize Media, by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, March 24, 2010
• summary of remarks at “Crisis in Journalism” event, by Adam Thierer, Feb. 2010
• We’re from Government and We’re Here to Help (Save Journalism) by Adam Thierer, March 6, 2010
• A “Public Option” for Media? The Free Press Plan to Put Journalists on the Public Dole, by Adam Thierer, Nov. 2009
• Public Option for Press Should Get the Red Pen, by Adam Thierer, The Daily Caller, Jan. 2010
• Free Press, Robert McChesney & the “Struggle” for Media, by Adam Thierer, Aug. 2009
• What the Media Reformistas Really Want, by Adam Thierer, Aug. 2008
• Socializing Media in Order to Save It, by Adam Thierer, City Journal, March 2009
• Obama Should Just Say No To Newspaper Bailouts, Adam Thierer, Sept. 2009
• The Dangers of Government-Subsidized News, by Adam Thierer, Oct. 2009

As I’ve noted here before, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has an ongoing proceeding asking “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” The agency has hosted two workshops on the issue and a third is scheduled for June 15th at the National Press Club. Recently, the FTC released a 47-page staff discussion draft entitled “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism,” which outlines dozens of proposals that have been set forth in recent years to “save journalism,” “reinvent media,” or support various forms of so-called “public interest programming.”  [I’ve embedded the document down below.] Although the FTC makes it very clear on the first page of the discussion draft that it “does not represent final conclusions or recommendations by the Commission or FTC staff [and] it is solely for purposes of discussion,” the document is drawing scrutiny and raising concern since it might foreshadow where the FTC (and Obama Administration) could be heading on this front.

Some of those raising a stink about the FTC draft include: Jeff Jarvis (“FTC Protects Journalism’s Past“); Rob Port (“Federal Government Considering “iPad Tax” To Subsidize Journalism“); Mark Tapscott: “(Will Journalists Wake up in Time to Save Journalism from Obama’s FTC?”); and Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times (“Obama’s FTC Plan to Reinvent America’s News Media“), who says, “this FTC study is rated R for anyone who thinks the federal government, the object of copious news coverage itself, has no business deciding which sectors of the private media business survive and thrive through its support, subsidies and encouragement with things like tax incentives. Yet that’s what this Obama administration paper is suggesting as another of the ex-community organizer’s galactic reform plans.”   Ouch!

I’ve spent a great deal of time considering many of the “reform” proposals that the FTC outlines in its discussion draft and, along with Berin Szoka, recently released a 5-part series of papers and filed 80 pages of comments with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its “Future of Media” proceeding, which shares much in common with the FTC’s “Will Journalism Survive?” proceeding. Not all of the ideas floated in the FTC’s draft document are toxic, but some are very troubling and fit squarely in the red or yellow zone of that chart above, which plots a range of media policy options that the FTC or FCC might pursue.

As the FTC draft is structured currently, it appears to have been heavily influenced by the radical activist group Free Press and its founder Robert McChesney, the prolific neo-Marxist media scholar from the University of Illinois. I’ve explained in detail here before the dangerous ideas floated by McChesney and Free Press. For background, see:

• Free Press, Robert McChesney & the “Struggle” for Media, Aug. 2009
• A “Public Option” for Media? The Free Press Plan to Put Journalists on the Public Dole, Nov. 2009
• What the Media Reformistas Really Want, Aug. 2008
• Socializing Media in Order to Save It, March 2009

McChesney and his Free Press disciples have called for a “post-corporate” media world in which the state essentially serves as both a benefactor and partner of the press. Their “public option” for the press would essentially upend private media and toss the First Amendment into the dustbin of history. I encourage everyone who thinks I am exaggerating to read Chapter 4 (“Subsidizing Democracy”) of McChesney’s new book with John Nichols, The Death and Life of American Journalism as well as the “National Journalism Strategy” that Free Press released last year.

Those two works read like a Soviet-style 5-Year Plan for the Press. Massive subsidies. Massive taxes. Massive state meddling into virtually every aspect of the media marketplace and journalistic profession. And if, after reading those documents, you still don’t think they are out to destroy the private provision of media in America, you might want to check out this interview McChesney did with the Canadian-based “Socialist Project” in which he confessed that “the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists,” and noted that, “unless you make significant changes in the media, it will be vastly more difficult to have a revolution.” Similarly, in his book with Nichols, he concludes by noting that “We have responded in a time of crisis not with tinkering reforms but with revolution.”  They sure have!

For some reason, the FTC seems enamored with these dangerous ideas. McChesney and Free Press are cited over a dozen times and their proposals show up almost verbatim throughout the FTC’s discussion draft. Moreover, McChesney was recently invited to one of the FTC’s workshops to deliver a major address on these issues. Finally, what makes me particularly nervous is that Susan DeSanti, the person running the FTC’s effort, has praised McChesney and Nichols’ “excellent book” despite its call for radical steps that would essentially hobble private media and impose crushing taxes on just about everyone in sight to subsidize public, state-blessed media.

I sincerely hope that the FTC’s “discussion draft” is just that, and nothing more.  I’m fine with discussing kooky Marxist ideas all day long. I just hope our government isn’t getting ready to start imposing them upon us.

New FTC Staff Discussion

I’m keeping tabs on who filed “major” comments (more than a 10-15 pages) in the Federal Communications Commission’s “Future of Media” proceeding (GN Docket No. 10-25).  As I noted last week, The Progress & Freedom Foundation submitted almost 80 pages of comments (single-spaced!) in the matter, so it’s something I care deeply about and will be tracking closely going forward.

Incidentally, the general consensus of those who filed (especially if you count “minor” comments) is fairly overwhelming: Bring on Big Government! Seriously, I only found a handful of comments that object strenuously to government meddling in media markets or that raised concerns about the potential for the State’s increasing involvement in the journalism profession. Even many of the affected industries appear to be suffering from a bit of Stockholm syndrome here.  Most of them just play up the good things they are doing but barely utter a peep about the dangers of federal encroachment into the affairs of the Press.

Anyway, for those of you who care to track the gradual federalization of media and journalism, I think what you see below is a fairly comprehensive listing of the major filings submitted thus far in the FCC’s “Future of Media” proceeding. I’ll try to add more as I find them. You might also want to track what was filed in the Federal Trade Commission’s workshops on “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age.”  Finally, if you care to learn more of this issue, I’m hosting an event on the morning of May 20th to discuss these issues in more detail.

• American Community Television
• American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
• American Public Media
• Association of Independents in Radio
• broadcast TV stations coalition
• Center for Social Media (Patricia Aufderheide & Jessica Clark) [+ attachments 1, 2, 3]
• Communications Workers of America & The Newspaper Guild
• Communications Workers of America & Media Council Hawaii
• Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
• CPB – PBS – NPR – APTS
• Free Community Paper Industry
• Free Press, New America Foundation, Media Access Project & others
• Good Life Broadcasting, Inc.
• Institute for Policy Integrity (New York Univ. School of Law)
• LIN Television
• The Media Consortium
• Media Working Group, Inc.
• Minority Media and Telecommunications Council
• National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
• National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA)
• National Hispanic Media Coalition
• Native Public Media
• National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
• National Religious Broadcasters
• National Public Radio (NPR)
• National Federation of Community Broadcasters
• New Media Rights
• Newspaper Association of America (NAA)
• Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc
• Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF)
• Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)
• Radio Television Digital News Association
• Station Resource Group (+attachment)
• Society of Professional Journalists
• J. Brian Hudson (J.D. candidate at Villanova Law School)

The Progress & Freedom Foundation today filed comments in the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) “Future of Media” proceeding. Berin Szoka, Ken Ferree, and I urged the FCC to “reject Chicken Little-esque calls for extreme media ‘reform’ solutions,” and counseled policymakers to move cautiously so that media reform can be “organic and bottom-up, not driven by heavy-handed, top-down industrial policies for the press.”

Our 79-page filing covers a wide range of ideas being examined by Washington policymakers to help struggling media outlets and unemployed journalists, or to expand public media / “public interest” content and regulation. Among the major issues explored in our filing:

• First Amendment concerns implicated by government subsidies;
• The pitfalls of imposing new “public interest” obligations on media operators;
• How advertising restrictions could harm the provision of media and news;
• Taxes, fees and other regulations to be avoided;
• The limited role in reform that public media subsidies can play; and
• Positive steps government could take.

We note that as “With many operators struggling to cope with intensifying competition, digitization, declining advertising budgets, and fragmenting audiences, some pundits and policymakers are wondering what the ‘future of media’ entails. The answer: Nobody knows.”  While this uncertainty has put concerned policymakers at the ready to “help” the press, we warn that: “There is great danger in rash government intervention.” Instead, policymakers should be “careful to not inhibit potentially advantageous marketplace developments, even if some are highly disruptive.” Marketplace meddling, or government attempts to tinker with private media business models in the hopes that something new and better can be created, are misguided. Moreover, “Our constitutional traditions warn against it, history suggests it would be unwise, and practical impediments render such meddling largely unworkable, anyway.”

We address several specific proposals to use public coffers to prop up the media—such as media vouchers, taxing broadcast spectrum, and expanding postal subsidies, among others. They believe that most of these stand on shaky ground, especially as they relate to press independence; First Amendment values; political strings, pressure and meddling; taxpayer promotion of failed models; and taxpayer-compelled funding of unwanted or offensive content.

The PFF comments also focus on the integral role advertising plays in supporting free media: “Advertising has been the hidden, unappreciated benefactor that has sustained a free press historically and policymakers should understand that an attack on advertising is tantamount to an attack on media itself.” Accordingly, if Washington wages a war on advertising, media providers will suffer greatly.

We examine non-commercial media options, too. Though limited support can work at the margins, “policymakers should not view public media as a substitute for private media operations.” If the government truly wants to help ailing media outlets and journalism, policymakers could relax media ownership regulations; allow non-profit status for media enterprises; and provide far greater transparency into its own affairs.

We conclude that the Commission should ignore sky-is-falling rhetoric and avoid “destroy[ing] the important wall between State and Press.”  Instead of imposing an industrial policy on the press, we urge policymakers to exercise patience and let creative destruction in the media marketplace play out.

While working on our FCC filing, we released a series of essays over the last month entitled “The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media” (see Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5).You can find all those papers, our big filing, and other related materials on this new PFF page dedicated to “Future of Media” issues.

Also, on May 20th, PFF will host an event covering these and competing ideas, called “Can Government Help Save the Press?” That event will be keynoted by the FCC’s Ellen Goodman.  RSVP here today. Comments of Progress and Freedom Foundation in FCC Future of Media Proceeding (GN Docket No 10-25) http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

Thought you all might be interested in this upcoming PFF event on “Can Government Help Save the Press?” It will take place on Thursday, May 20, 2010 from 8:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. in the International Gateway Room, Mezzanine Level of the Ronald Reagan Building on 1300 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. here in DC.   This event will consider the FCC’s “Future of Media” proceeding (comments are due this Friday) and debate what role the government should play (if any) in sustaining struggling media enterprises, “saving journalism,” or promoting more “public media” or “public interest” content. [You can find all our essays about this here.]

The event will feature a keynote address by Ellen P. Goodman of the FCC’s Future of Media team. Ellen is one of the sharpest minds in the media policy universe today, and a real asset to the FCC team. She is a Distinguished Visiting Scholar at the FCC, a Research Fellow at American University’s Center for Social Media, and a Visiting Scholar at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School of Communications.  She is also a Professor at Rutgers University School of Law at Camden, specializing in information law and policy. She has spoken before a wide range of audiences around the world on media policy issues, has consulted with the U.S. government on communications policy, and served as an advisor to President Obama’s presidential campaign and transition team.

After Ellen Goodman brings us up to speed with where the FCC’s Future of Media process stands, we’ll hear from a diverse panel of experts that I am still busy assembling. But so far it includes Charlie Firestone of the Aspen Institute, who will be on hand to discuss the work he’s been doing with the Knight Commission on this front.  I’ve also invited a rep from the Newspaper Association of America to come and talk about the diversity of new media monetization models that they have been aggregating.  (Check out the appendix of their outstanding FTC filing last Nov.) And Kurt Wimmer of Covington & Burling, who represents broadcasters among others, will talk about the need for regulatory flexibility / forbearance, especially on ownership issues.  Again, more panelists to come. But please sign up now!

PFF today released the fifth installment in our ongoing series on “The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media.” This series of papers explores various tax and regulatory proposals that would have government play an expanded role in supporting the press, journalism, or other media content. In the latest essay, Berin Szoka, Ken Ferree, and I discuss proposals for direct subsidies for failing media outlets and out-of-work journalists.

We argue taxpayer support for failing outlets and unemployed journalists implicates significant First Amendment concerns. On the whole, subsidies can make “journalists and media operators more dependent upon the State; compromise press independence and diminish public trust in the free press; and result in government discrimination in the politically inescapable dilemma of determining eligibility for subsidies.” Such an agenda would also entail huge cost to taxpayers—initially about $35 billion per year according to advocates—and would represent “a massive wealth transfer from one class of speakers to another…”

We warn that calls for seemingly beneficent bailouts “to save” the media and journalism may actually be driven by those who have something more nefarious in mind: a “post-corporate” world shorn of media capitalists, and “such radicalism must be rejected if we hope to sustain a truly free press and uphold America’s proud tradition of keeping a high and tight wall of separation between Press and State.”

The ideas within these and other essays in the series will be worked into a major PFF filing in the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) proceeding on the “Future of Media” on May 7. The paper may be viewed online here and I’ve attached it down below in a Scribd reader.

Wrong Way to Reinvent Media Part 5 – Media Bailouts [Thierer Szoka Ferree – PFF] http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

In this latest PFF TechCast, Berin Szoka and I discuss the two latest installments in our ongoing “Wrong Way to Reinvent Media” series. These two recent installments dealt with “media vouchers” and expanded postal subsidies as methods of assisting struggling media enterprises or promoting more hard news. In this 7-minute podcast, PFF’s press director Mike Wendy chats with us about these proposals and we argue that they both raise a variety of practical and principled concerns that weigh against their adoption by policymakers.

MP3 file: PFF TechCast #3 – Media Vouchers & Postal Subsidies (4/27/2010)

As mentioned here before, PFF has been rolling out a new series of essays examining proposals that would have the government play a greater role in sustaining struggling media enterprises, “saving journalism,” or promoting more “public interest” content. We’re releasing these as we get ready to submit a big filing in the FCC’s “Future of Media” proceeding (deadline is May 7^th).  Here’s a podcast Berin Szoka and I did providing an overview of the series and what the FCC is up to.

In the first installment of the series, Berin Szoka and I critiqued an old idea that’s suddenly gained new currency: taxing media devices or distribution systems to fund media content. In the second installment, I took a hard look at proposals to impose fees on broadcast spectrum licenses and channeling the proceeds to a “public square channel” or some other type of public media or “public interest” content. The third installment dealt with proposals to steer citizens toward “hard news” and get them to financially support it through the use of “news vouchers” or “public interest vouchers.”

In our latest essay, “The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 4: Expanding Postal Subsidies,” Berin and I argue that expanding postal subsidies won’t likely do much to help failing media enterprises, will raise the risk of greater meddling by politicians with the press, and can’t be absorbed by the Postal Service without a significant increase in cost for ratepayers or taxpayers.  The entire essay is attached down below.

The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 4: Expanding Postal Subsidies

by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka

PFF Progress on Point 17.5 [PDF]

In this ongoing series, we‘ve been exploring various tax and regulatory proposals that would have public policymakers play a greater role in propping up the press in some way. Some academics, advocacy groups, and government officials have suggested that steps need to be taken to assist struggling media enterprises, support news-gathering efforts, or expand public media options. In Parts 1 and 2 of this series, we expressed concern about proposals to impose taxes on devices, networks, or broadcast spectrum licenses to funnel money to public media projects or other “public interest” content or objectives.^[1] In Part 3, we questioned the wisdom of government officials creating “news vouchers” or “public interest vouchers.”[2] Other essays will deal with taxes on advertising as a method of funding public media, and the wisdom of welfare for journalists and bailouts for media operators.

A wrap-up essay will then focus on some potentially constructive policy reforms that could assist media enterprises without a massive infusion of state support or regulation of the press. These essays will then be cobbled together and submitted as part of PFF’s filing to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as part of its “Future of Media” proceeding (filings are due May 7^th).

In this essay we discuss an idea favored by a number of media scholars and advocacy groups: expanded postal subsidies as a method of assisting struggling media enterprises.^[3] The revisionist histories penned by some of these scholars would have us believe the Founding Fathers were practically media Marxists, enthralled with public subsidization of the press.  Of course, in reality, nothing could be further from the truth.  Just because they provided a modest postal subsidy for press materials doesn’t mean the Founders believed that government should be micromanaging or massively subsiding this sector. The “Congress shall make no law” language found in the First Amendment confirms that.

Can We Afford It?

Practically speaking, the idea of expanding postal subsidies at this time seems like a non-starter. The U.S. Postal Service simply can’t absorb the losses associated with expanded postal subsidies. The Washington Post recently noted that, “The Postal Service is on course to lose more than $7 billion this year, despite substantial recent cost-cutting, and it could lose more than $238 billion by 2020. Approaching the limits of its federal credit line, the USPS must change drastically or go bust.”^[4] The U.S. Postal Service itself has noted that, “even if its plan [to cut losses and increase revenues] was to succeed in every action that present legislation allows, the Postal Service would still face unsustainable losses of at least $115 billion by 2020.”^[5] Yet the Postal Service acknowledges it has “an unsustainable business model” as volume and revenues continue to plummet with no end in sight.^[6] Similarly, in a recent report to Congress, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the Postal Service’s business model “is not viable due to [its] inability to reduce costs sufficiently in response to continuing mail volume and revenue declines.”^[7]

One cost-saving method that the Postal Service has floated is an increase in “preferred-class pricing” (subsidized rates for media products):

Addressing the pricing of preferred mail—such as non-profit mail, Media Mail, Library Mail, and Periodicals—would ensure that these products get to a point where they cover costs while contributing reasonably to overhead costs. An alternative would be appropriations funding to cover the gap.^[8]

Thus, it seems clear that the Postal Service itself believes even existing postal subsidies place too great of a strain on an already failing system. And the GAO notes:

Historically, some types of mail were designed to channel broad public goals, such as furthering the dissemination of information, the distribution of merchandise, and the advancement of nonprofit organizations.  For example, Periodicals (mainly, mailed magazines and newspapers) have historically been given favorable rates, consistent with the view that they help bind the nation together, but this class has not covered its costs for the past 13 fiscal years.… These escalating losses have provoked growing concern and controversy.[9]

The report notes annual losses for the various categories of subsidized mail service and the mounting costs of subsidies, as illustrated in the adjoining exhibit.[10]

As the cost of existing postal subsidies mount, it seems likely the public wouldn’t take kindly to the idea of being forced to foot the bill for vastly increased subsidies. According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, more Americans would rather give up some daily service than pay more to the Postal Service to cover the massive losses the Postal Service is expected to incur in coming years:  71% of those polled said they favored ending Saturday deliveries while just 44% said they favored raising stamp prices or providing additional federal funding.^[11] For these reasons, a significant expansion of media subsidies seems both unwise and untenable.

More Subsidies, More Meddling

Importantly, as is the case with many of the other proposals discussed in our ongoing series, a significant expansion in government involvement raises the specter of increased meddling by policymakers with the media.  Proponents of expanding postal subsidies often gloss over the rather horrifying history of censorship by the Postal Service in the past.

Most notably, Nichols claims that “postal subsidies… helped to foster the abolitionist press,” and claims that this proves that “we can have a dissident, challenging—anti-government press, operating within a system of subsidies.”[12] But, again, there’s a bit of revisionist history at work here.  David Walker Howe, author of the magisterial history, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848, details the history of the Postal Service in the early Republic and its central importance (until the invention of the telegraph) as the country’s primary information distribution system.  Howe notes that the newspapers (and other printed matter) constituted the “overwhelming bulk of the mail” and his account suggests that subsidies undoubtedly played an important role in increasing readership of, and competition among, newspapers—including abolitionist newspapers.[13] But he also notes that the U.S. Postal Service effectively censored these publications in the South from the mid-1830s until secession a quarter-century later.[14] Howe notes that “The refusal of the Post Office to deliver abolitionist mail to the South may well represent the largest peacetime violation of civil liberty in U.S. history.”[15] He also suggests that censorship may have accelerated the radicalization of North against South, and accelerated the coming of war: “Deprived of access to communication with the South [by postal censorship], the abolitionists would henceforth concentrate on wining over the North.”[16]

Sadly, this kind of censorship became a distinctly illiberal American tradition.  In 1865, Congress banned sending obscene materials through the mails, apparently out of concern about adult novels being mailed to Federal troops at the front.[17] In the late 1800s, for example, Anthony Comstock, founder of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, used the mail system as the primary mechanism of his censorship crusades.  After successfully pushing Congress to pass an expanded obscenity law through Congress in 1873 that censored, among many other things, information about abortion and conception, Comstock was promptly appointed as a Post Office special agent and given the power “to seize publications and devices he considered immoral and to prosecute their senders.”^[18] Later, in 1914, the Post Office began an ongoing crackdown on James Joyce’s Ulysses and any publication that had the temerity to even publish passages from the work.^[19]

Postal system censorship was also ramped up during World War I after Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, which included provisions giving the Postmaster General power to impound publications he deemed seditious.  According to media historians Michael and Edwin Emery, authors of The Press and America: An Interpretive History of Mass Media, “some forty-four papers lost their mailing privileges during the first year of the Espionage Act and another thirty retained them only by agreeing to print nothing more concerning the war.”^[20] They note that: “The axe fell most heavily on Socialist organs and German-language newspapers; a few other pacifist or anti-Ally publications also lost their mail privileges.  The American Socialist was banned from the mails immediately and was soon followed by Solidarity, the journal of the left-wing Industrial Workers of the World.”^[21] It wasn’t until 1946 that the Supreme Court finally began to constrain the Post Office’s censorial ways after it denied second-class mailing privileges to Esquire because it supposedly featured “morally improper” content.^[22]

Of course, the worst of the Postal Service’s censorial days are likely well behind us—especially since courts today probably wouldn’t tolerate such blatant violations of the First Amendment.   Nonetheless, a significant ramping-up of postal subsidies for the press creates new potential pressure points for policymakers to exploit, even if in marginal, indirect ways.  Policymakers, in turn, will likely feel increased pressure from vocal constituents because, the more substantial the subsidy becomes, the more obvious it will be to taxpayers that they are paying for the cost of supporting media they may find objectionable, either because of its particular viewpoint or its content. As Thomas Jefferson famously put it in the 1786 Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”^[23] That is, we naturally—and rightly—resent subsidizing speech that is antithetical to our own values.[24]

Why Subsidize the Distribution System of the Past?

Finally, why we would want to subsidize this old form of distribution anyway?  Electronic media is clearly the way of the future.  There’s a reason science fiction movies never show someone going out to pick up the morning newspaper in the year 2200.  In addition to subsidizing newspaper delivery in the early days of the Post Office, between 1785 and 1845 the postal system was used to subsidize stagecoach travel and routes, even though it was more expensive and less efficient than using single riders to deliver the mail.  The hope was to encourage the development of stage lines and to thereby ease interstate travel for regular citizens.  Perhaps there was something to be said for that idea then, or for using postal contracts to promote the development of canals or railroads or aviation, at least these subsidies were intended to accelerate the development and adoption of emerging technologies, not waning ones.  We would laugh today if someone told us the Postal Service should be subsidizing stagecoach travel—or any other form of transportation, for that matter.  So why isn’t it considered just as laughable to say that the Post Office should be subsidizing media printed on dead trees that need to be physically shuttled around the country and then disposed of?  Why incur the additional “carbon footprint” of all that unnecessary rearranging and moving of atoms when we can just deal with bits?

This is 2010, not 1910.  It’s time to begin letting go of our old, inefficient physical systems for distributing information, and recognize that, in the Digital Era, communications and transportation have finally separated.  Even U.S. Postmaster General John Potter has noted that his organization’s business model is as outdated as the newspaper industry’s:

“Twenty years ago we would laugh at the notion that a newspaper would ever embrace the idea that maybe the channel of the future is electronic and that you may have to change your business model,” Potter told a group of reporters at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.  He added, “Likewise, the postal service is in a situation where the behavior of America is changing and we have to fix and change our business model to adapt to it.”[25]

At some point in the future, news papers will probably gradually die out, but the news companies that print them and their emerging competitors will continue to produce journalism.  The only difference is that they will distribute their information products over the Internet to screens (and speakers and headphones) on a wide variety of devices yet to be invented.  Increasing postal subsidies merely—and quite literally—“paper over” the fundamental problem faced by traditional print media of dealing with this technological transition.

[2] Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 3: Media Vouchers, PFF Progress on Point 17.4, April 2010, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2010/pop17.4-media_vouchers.pdf.

[3] See Robert W. McChesney & John Nichols, The Death and Life of American Journalism (2010) at 168-9; Geoffrey Cowan & David Westphal, Public Policy and Funding the News, USC Annenberg School for Communications & Journalism, Research Series, 2010, at 9, http://fundingthenews.org; Free Press, Saving the News: Toward a National Journalism Strategy, at 36-7, 2009, www.freepress.net/files/saving_the_news.pdf.

[4] Congress is Running Out of Time to Save the Postal Service, The Washington Post, March 10, 2010, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/09/AR2010030903337.html

[5] United States Postal Service, Ensuring a Viable Postal Service for America, 2010, at 1, www.usps.com/strategicplanning/_pdf/Ensuring_Viable_USPS_paper.pdf

[6] Id. at 3.

[7] United States Government Accountability Office, U.S. Postal Service: Strategies and Options to Facilitate Progress toward Financial Viability, GAO-10-455, April 2010, at 6, www.gao.gov/new.items/d10455.pdf.

[8] Id. at 14.

[9] Id. at 46 (emphasis added).

[10] Id. at 47.

[11] Ed O’Keefe & Jon Cohen, Poll Says Most Americans Back Halting Saturday Mail But Not Closing Post Offices, The Washington Post, March 30, 2010, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/29/AR2010032903823.html.

[12] Transcript: Saving American Journalism, Now on PBS, Jan. 15, 2010, www.pbs.org/now/shows/603/transcript.html.

[13] David Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 (2007) at 226-27.

[14] Id.  at 427-30.

[15] Id.  at 430.

[16] Id.

[17] Margaret A. Blanchard, Revolutionary Sparks: Freedom of Expression in Modern America (1992) at 16.

[18] Marjorie Heins, Not in Front of the Children: “Indecency,” Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth (2001) at 32.

[19] In 1918, a publication called The Little Review began published excerpts from Ulysses. Marjorie Heins explains what happened next: “The U.S. Post Office confiscated and burned four separate issues of the Review, and in January 1920 told [Review publishers] Heap and Anderson that it would put them out of business if they continued to publish Ulysses.” Id. at 40-41.

[20] Michael Emery & Edwin Emery, The Press and America: An Interpretive History of Mass Media (Prentice Hall, 6^th Ed., 1988) at 297.

[21] Id.

[22] Heins, supra note 18 at 47. The case was Hannegan v. Esquire 327 U.S. 146 (1946).

[23] http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

[24] See Thierer & Szoka, supra note 2 at 7 (discussing the inevitability of political pressure for subsidy strings).

[25] Drew Wheatley, Postal Service Chief: Our Business Model as Outdated as the Newspaper Industry’s, The Hill Blog, March 11, 2010, http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/86265-postal-service-chief-our-business-model-as-outdated-as-the-newspaper-industrys.

Wrong Way to Reinvent Media Part 4 – Postal Subsidies [Thierer & Szoka – PFF] http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

As I’ve mentioned here previously, PFF has been rolling out a new series of essays examining proposals that would have the government play a greater role in sustaining struggling media enterprises, “saving journalism,” or promoting more “public interest” content. We’re releasing these as we get ready to submit a big filing in the FCC’s “Future of Media” proceeding (deadline is May 7^th).  Here’s a podcast Berin Szoka and I did providing an overview of the series and what the FCC is doing.

In the first installment of the series, Berin and I critiqued an old idea that’s suddenly gained new currency: taxing media devices or distribution systems to fund media content. In the second installment, I took a hard look at proposals to impose fees on broadcast spectrum licenses and channeling the proceeds to a “public square channel” or some other type of public media or “public interest” content.

In our latest essay, “The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 3: Media Vouchers,” Berin and I consider whether it is possible to steer citizens toward so-called “hard news” and get them to financially support it through the use of “news vouchers” or “public interest vouchers”?  We argue that using the tax code to “nudge” people to support media — while less problematic than direct subsidies for the press — will likely raise serious issues regarding eligibility and be prone to political meddling.  Moreover, it’s unlikely the scheme will actually encourage people to direct more resources to hard news but instead just become a method of subsidizing other content they already consume.

I’ve attached the entire essay down below.

The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 3: Media Vouchers

by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka*

PFF Progress on Point 17.4 [PDF]

Should the government play a greater role in the media sector in the name of sustaining struggling media enterprises, “saving journalism,” or promoting public media?  In this ongoing series of essays, we’ve been analyzing proposals that would have public policymakers use taxes, subsidies, or regulations to accomplish those objectives.

Part 1 of this series examined proposals to fund media content via a tax on consumer electronics, broadband service, or cell phone bills.^[1] Part 2 critiqued proposals to impose fees on broadcast spectrum licenses and channeling the proceeds to a “public square channel” or some other type of public media or “public interest” content.^[2] Other essays in this series will address proposals to tax private advertising revenues to support public media; expand postal subsidies; directly subsidize out-of-work journalists; and to prop up or bail out failing media entities.  A wrap-up essay will then focus on some potentially constructive policy reforms that could assist media enterprises without a massive infusion of state support or regulation of the press.

In this installment, we will consider whether it is possible to steer citizens toward so-called “hard news” (“serious” journalism)—and get them to financially support it—through the use of “news vouchers” or “public interest vouchers”?  We will argue that using the tax code to nudge people to support media—while less problematic than direct subsidies for the press—will likely raise serious issues regarding eligibility and be prone to political meddling.  Moreover, it’s unlikely the scheme will actually encourage people to direct more resources to hard news but instead just become a method of subsidizing other content they already consume.

Funding Hard News is Hard

Funding “hard news” has always been challenging.  Financing a team of dedicated local beat reporters, investigative journalists, national desks, foreign bureaus, and all the associated production facilities and support staff is an extremely expensive undertaking.[3] And, for all that trouble and expense, hard news rarely turns a healthy profit.  Often it has been considered a “loss leader” for media companies and has been cross-subsidized by other types of content or services.[4] This is why “bundling” has been such a popular model for many media operations such as newspapers, magazines, and cable television.  By tying news production to other types of content or services, media operators have been able to sustain the production of hard news, despite its general unprofitability on its own.

It’s worth recalling that a business model to sustain hard news production and dissemination on a mass scale really only developed mid-way through our Republic.  The early history of media in this country was characterized by the “partisan press” due to the heavy reliance on a patronage model and direct association with political parties and figures. This changed with the rise of large daily newspapers in the mid-1800s and then broadcast radio and television in the early half of the 20 ^th century.[5] Media providers were able to cross-subsidize news production independent of private or political patronage thanks to three things: (1) high-speed printing presses or broadcast facilities, (2) geographic-based market and pricing power, and (3) the widespread advertising base that was made possible by (1) and (2).

Over just the past 15-20 years, we’ve seen this traditional model upended.  Increased competition and technological/platform proliferation are placing an enormous strain on traditional media operations and business models. Schumpeterian “creative destruction” is at work in a serious, and for many, painful, way.

This is what is keeping the Federal Communications Commission,[6] the Federal Trade Commission,[7] some in Congress,[8] and many media worrywarts up at night: the fear that, as traditional financing mechanisms falter (advertising, classifieds, subscription revenues, etc.), many traditional news-gathering efforts and institutions will disappear.  And that’s leading to calls for government intervention or assistance of some sort to prop up struggling entities or directly subsidize the hard news that many of them have traditionally provided but may not be able to for much for longer.

Can Vouchers “Nudge” Citizens to Support Hard News?

One much-discussed proposal would create a “public interest voucher” or what Robert W. McChesney & John Nichols, authors of the new book The Death and Life of American Journalism, call a “Citizenship News Voucher.”^[9] This is a variant on the “artistic freedom voucher,” an idea first put forward in 2003 by economist Dean Baker as an alternative to copyright law as a means of incentivizing artistic creation.[10] The regulatory activist group Free Press, which McChesney founded, has also endorsed a news voucher scheme.[11]

The idea is fairly straightforward: give every American a voucher (McChesney and Nichols propose $200) to support the non-profit news entities of their choice by listing those entities on their tax return.  (If half of all adult Americans actually used their voucher, that would cost at least $20 billion/year.[12])  They assume this would be an efficient way of channeling money to hard news providers while avoiding the serious concerns that arise when government officials or agencies are the ones providing or steering the subsidies.  McChesney and Nichols go so far as to call their tax-and-redistribute proposal “a libertarian’s dream,” since “people can support whatever political viewpoint they prefer or do nothing at all.”[13]

McChesney and Nichols seem to be building on the approach popularized by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein in their highly influential 2008 book Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness.^[14] Based on behavioral economics studies, Thaler and Sunstein argue that both government and private actors must inevitably make decisions about “choice architecture” and that, by setting defaults, incentives and rules smartly, “choice architects” can and should improve private decision-making—but only where they can do so without blocking, fencing-off or significantly burdening choices.^[15] While their proposal might not qualify as a nudge in the strict sense defined by Thaler and Sunstein, the essential similarity between the concepts lies in trying to restructure the choices Americans make about media consumption by changing how they spend money on media—with the declared goal of “improving” both media consumption and the media itself (by “freeing it” of supposedly evil corporate influences).

Problems with the News Voucher Proposal

While nudges might be less objectionable in circumstances where it’s objectively evident what’s really “good” for us, the same can hardly be said for media consumption.  “Nudging” consumers towards better media choices isn’t based on clear science about, say, eating better or getting more exercise, but on highly subjective decisions about what kind of information consumption is really good for individuals, communities, and polities.  For policymakers to imagine that they can steer the public’s tastes or behavior in more desirable directions through law (including media subsidy schemes) is a profoundly elitist enterprise.^[16] In the case of “news vouchers,” the hope is that the public can be encouraged to at least channel some additional support to news-gathering activities and institutions.  The problem, however, is that some people just don’t much like being “nudged” by officials from afar and they’ll often take steps to evade such paternalism—however ostensibly “libertarian” it might be.  And it could lead to a host of unintended consequences, discussed further below.[17]

As a general matter, it simply isn’t possible to make consumers choose the “right” media in an age of information abundance.^[18] With so many voices competing for our attention, it’s impossible make people watch, listen, or read if they don’t want to.  That’s especially true with hard news, which has never netted major ratings.  As Ellen P. Goodman of the Rutgers-Camden School of Law has noted: “Given the proliferation of consumer filtering and choice, these kinds of interventions are of questionable efficacy.  Consumers equipped with digital selection and filtering tools are likely to avoid content they do not demand no matter what the regulatory efforts to force exposure.”[19] As Goodman rightly argues, “regulation cannot, in a liberal democracy, force viewers to consume media products they do not think they want in the name of the public interest.”[20] There’s no reason to believe this situation has ever been different or will ever change:  Writing in 1922, famed journalist Walter Lippmann noted that, “it is possible to make a rough estimate only of the amount of attention people give each day to informing themselves about public affairs,” but “the time each day is small when any of us is directly exposed to information from our unseen environment.”[21]

McChesney and Nichols’ effort to sell this scheme as “a libertarian’s dream” is a huge stretch.  There aren’t too many libertarians—or anyone else for that matter—who favor sending more money to the federal government only to win back the right to spend it on “qualifying media entities.”  And regarding their claim that “people can support whatever political viewpoint they prefer or do nothing at all,” well, people are already free to do whatever they want with their money when it comes to media products!  Why do we need to send money to Washington first and then have policymakers tell us how we can spend it?  This seems like a needless nudge—and one that would likely result in government bureaucracy taking a cut of the money or meddling in media markets.

Analogies to educational vouchers don’t work because we long ago decided to treat education as a public good and force everyone to pay for it.  “Voucherization” may make sense as a more efficient and “libertarian” way to fund such traditional public goods, when we absolutely have to force people to spend money on certain goods or services.  While McChesney and Nichols claim that the time has come for the government to fund media as such a public good, most people probably wouldn’t agree, since the private provision of media services has worked quite well for some time—being funded by a mix of advertising and subscription revenues for centuries.  They repeatedly claim that era is over (with little substantiation) but, in reality, it is their policies that would end private, for-profit media by taxing and regulating it to death.[22]

Second, what counts as a “qualifying media entity,” and how will the IRS make that call?  Can just any outlet that purports to gather and report “news” draw support from this new federal program?  McChesney and Nichols aren’t clear: They want the IRS to “determine eligibility—according to universal standards that err on the side of expanding rather than constraining the number of serious sources covering and commenting on issues of the day.”[23] They specify only that the entity must be a non-profit (though not necessarily a federally-recognized 501(c)(3)); not accept advertising; “do exclusively media content”; “cannot be part of a larger organization or have any non-media operations”; and that everything the medium produces must be made available immediately upon publication on the Internet and made available for free to all.”[24] But, anticipating objections about the dangers of political meddling, they also insist that “the government will not evaluate the content to see that the money is going toward journalism.  Our assumption is that these criteria will effectively produce that result, and if there is some slippage so be it.”[25] The only mechanism they can suggest for reducing fraud and ensuring “seriousness” is that, “for a medium to receive funds it would have to get commitments for at least $20,000 worth of vouchers” (100 full donations of the $200 voucher).[26]

But will policymakers really let citizens redeem their vouchers on The National Inquirer or People magazine?  How about the satirical The Onion or Jon Stewart’s Daily Show?  “This is a risk we are more than willing to take,” McChesney and Nichols say since they are “operating on a gut instinct that people will use their vouchers to fund serious media while reaching into their pockets to pay for copies of The National Inquirer at the supermarket checkout.”^[27] Of course, it’s always easier to take such risks when you are playing with other people’s money!  (Nearly half of all Americans don’t pay any Federal income taxes,[28] so their $200 news voucher is definitely coming out of someone else’s tax bill.)

But it’s naïve to believe this idea is going to change the face of journalism in any serious way.  Most people will spend their vouchers on whatever media outlets and content they are currently consuming, which probably isn’t what McChesney and Nichols (or most policymakers) would prefer.  “The program may not develop exactly the type of journalism our greatest thinkers believe is necessary,” McChesney and Nichols admit.[29] But the real question is: What sort of demands will policymakers begin making if the voucher program ends up channeling money into media entities that don’t measure up to their standards or desires?  Qualification criteria would inevitably become the tool of political meddling.

The Inevitable Strings & the Political/Constitutional Paradox

This raises a fourth concern: How long will it be before government starts attaching more strings to the vouchers?  To borrow a recent headline from The Wall Street Journal, how long will it be before the “Economic Policy ‘Nudge’ Gives Way to a Shove?”^[30] Although, in theory, the news voucher idea lets consumers figure out how to steer the funds, it’s unlikely much of those funds would go toward hard news, civic-minded or “high brow” content if consumers were actually free to choose.  How do we know this?  Because we already know what consumers choose today—and those “poor” choices are part of the supposed “problem” to be solved by media vouchers.  Once people start redirecting taxpayer dollars to content that the elites and policymakers don’t like, the nudge will become a shove and more interventions will follow in the form of “voucher guidance and compliance” hearings, rules, etc.

But the pressure for strings won’t just come from the top down because, as Thomas Jefferson famously put it in the 1786 Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”[31] That is, we naturally—and rightly—resent subsidizing speech that is antithetical to our own values.  McChesney and Nichols dismiss this natural (presumably bourgeois?) indignation by saying, “people will have to accept that some of the vouchers are going to go to media that they detest.”^[32] In one sense, they are dead wrong: People won’t just accept that.  They may accept subtle, indirect subsidies, but the more clear it becomes that they are being forced to pay for media they detest—and that could scarcely be more clear than with a refundable tax credit “voucher”—they will protest and demand that certain viewpoints, or at least kinds of content, be deemed out of bounds.

But in another sense, McChesney and Nichols are probably correct: For such a scheme to work, it probably can’t come with any content strings, because this is probably what the First Amendment would require.  Yet they don’t actually explain that point, stopping only to say that we all just have to become more tolerant of “dissent”— i.e., subsidize those who disagree with us!  In this sense, news vouchers therefore would likely fall prey to a common paradox faced by proposals for the government to subsidize speech: What’s politically feasible is unconstitutional and what’s constitutional is politically impossible.  Specifically, the kinds of eligibility restrictions necessary to push a voucher scheme through Congress would probably cause the courts to strike down the whole scheme.  Even if the courts were willing to strike down only the eligibility provisions as “severable” from the rest of the scheme, the whole scheme would likely die in the very next federal budget if the courts require the funding of “offensive” or “frivolous” content.  Understanding why this is the case requires a brief overview of key First Amendment case law.

In general, “when the Government appropriates public funds to establish a program it is entitled to define the limits of that program.”^[33] Thus, in its 1991 Rust v. Sullivan decision, the Supreme Court upheld a law forbidding federal funding for family planning services to go to abortion counseling.^[34] But the Supreme Court later clarified that such viewpoint discrimination is permissible only “[w]hen the government disburses public funds to private entities to convey a governmental message.”^[35] By contrast, where subsidies are “designed to facilitate private speech,” government may not discriminate against viewpoints it does not like.^[36] Thus, the government may not fund legal services but bar funding for defendants trying to amend or otherwise challenge existing welfare law.^[37]

The First Amendment prohibits not only such viewpoint discrimination but content discrimination as well.  In 2003, the Supreme Court held that the University of Virginia could not exclude religious groups from drawing on the University’s Student Activity Fund, even though the Fund’s eligibility requirements did not discriminate against any particular religion.^[38] Yet in 1995, the Court had upheld another content restriction: a requirement that the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) “take into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public” when making grants to “help create and sustain not only a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry but also the material conditions facilitating the release of . . . creative talent.”^[39] The Court concluded, in an 8-1 majority, that the “’decency and respect’ criteria do not silence speakers by expressly threaten[ing] censorship of ideas.”^[40] This decision rested largely on the fact that “Educational programs are central to the NEA’s mission” and “it is well established that ‘decency’ is a permissible factor where ‘educational suitability’ motivates its consideration.”^[41] The Court left the door open to future First Amendment challenges to the statute “as applied,” such as “[i]f the NEA were to leverage its power to award subsidies on the basis of subjective criteria into a penalty on disfavored viewpoints.”^[42]

What explains these starkly different outcomes is that the Court decided that the University of Virginia’s Student Activity Fund constituted a “limited public forum”^[43] intended to “encourage a diversity of views from private speakers,” but the NEA did not.  The University had funded all speech except “religious editorial viewpoints” from its Student Activities Fund, into which every student paid a $14 mandatory fee each semester.  By contrast, the NEA made only a limited number of grants through a “competitive process” according to principles of inherently content-based principles of “excellence” as well as “geographic, ethnic, and esthetic diversity.”  Thus, it was permissible, in principle, for the NEA to exclude “indecent” content.

The Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. American Library Association, Inc. (2003) also suggests that content restrictions regarding Citizen News Vouchers would be struck down.  The Court held that the First Amendment did not bar Congress from requiring in the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) that “a public library may not receive federal assistance to provide Internet access unless it installs software to block images that constitute obscenity or child pornography, and to prevent minors from obtaining access to material that is harmful to them.”^[44] Critically, the Court held that libraries were not public fora:

A public library does not acquire Internet terminals in order to create a public forum for Web publishers to express themselves, any more than it collects books in order to provide a public forum for the authors of books to speak. It provides Internet access, not to “encourage a diversity of views from private speakers” … but for the same reasons it offers other library resources: to facilitate research, learning, and recreational pursuits by furnishing materials of requisite and appropriate quality.^[45]

But what is the purpose of the news voucher scheme if not to “encourage a diversity of views from private speakers?”  Indeed, this is precisely how McChesney and Nichols attempt to sell their scheme—as a “libertarian’s dream.”  But, paradoxically, the more “libertarian” and broader subsidies for speech are, the more likely the political/constitutional paradox mentioned above is to arise.

The Citizenship News Voucher Fund proposed by McChesney and Nichols strongly resembles the University of Virginia’s Student Activity Fund:  In both cases, consumers are taxed to finance a fund that is, in theory, available to any entity that meets certain basic eligibility criteria.  No attempt is made in either case to ensure the quality of content or activities being funded.  Indeed, McChesney and Nichols explicitly reject such oversight of voucher spending and insist that taxpayers must accept that much of the fund will simply be wasted on media that falls well short of the “hard” or “serious” news they’re trying to save.  (By contrast, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, whose budget McChesney and Nichols propose increasing nine-fold to fund more public media,[46] more closely resembles the NEA as a selective grant-maker.)

Also distinguishing the Court’s decision upholding CIPA’s content-based restrictions is the fact that both Justice Kennedy in his concurrence and Justice Souter in his dissent (joined by Justice Ginsburg) agreed that First Amendment problems could be solved to the extent that adults could opt-out of filtering.^[47] But with news vouchers, the government either restricts the eligibility of certain publications to receive vouchers depending on their eligibility or it does not.

Furthermore, unlike with CIPA or the NEA, the Citizenship News Voucher wouldn’t be related to educational settings, so it’s not even clear a “decency” requirement like that Congress imposed on the NEA’s grant-making could be imposed on voucher eligibility.[48] Magazines like Playboy offer a mix of pornography and thoughtful commentary on the news, proving that there is a market for such combination of journalism and controversial entertainment and photography.  Going even further, “Naked News” is a daily show whose buxom anchors strip while delivering the news.^[49] Why wouldn’t millions of Americans, especially younger men, use their voucher for such content?  Who’s going to draw the line between porn-spiced news and “serious” content?

The typical taxpayer will be outraged by having to subsidize some media outlet, whether because of its objectionable viewpoint or indecent or unserious content.  He will fiercely resist being compelled “to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” as Jefferson put it.  Good luck getting even the most “tolerant” gay voters, for example, to accept being taxed to pay for fundamentalist Christian perspectives on the news—or vice versa!  McChesney and Nichols don’t actually say anything about the First Amendment, but do recognize that, for their program to be accepted, the American people will have to swallow the “hard pill” of accepting that “some of the vouchers are going to go to media that they detest” and “embrace dissent in reality and not just rhetoric.”^[50] They seem to think this “hard pill” is a benefit of their scheme because it would teach us all to be more tolerant of “dissent.”  That’s easy for an endowed professor at a taxpayer-funded university and avowed neo-Marxist like Robert McChesney to say, but it’s not likely to fly with most Americans.  Disputes over “qualifying entity” eligibility will only add new rancor to the Culture Wars (over sex, abortion, religion, politics, etc.).

Realistically, it would likely take years for a news voucher bill to make its way through Congress, and if it ever did pass, it would likely be tied up in the courts for years, requiring at least one visit to the Supreme Court.  If any content strings are included, the law could well lead to the same kind of ordeal as with the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which spent nearly 9 years in litigation and went up to the Supreme Court twice.^[51] Yet somehow McChesney and Nichols imagine their proposal will save media today at this critical moment of technological transition.

Down with Copyright, Down with Capitalism?

There’s another problematic caveat to the McChesney-Nichols variant of the news voucher idea: They would disallow any copyright protection or advertising support for an entity who receives voucher funds.  That’s an effort by the authors to steer even more media activity away from the commercial sphere and toward what might be thought of as a “public option” for the press—what McChesney and Nichols euphemistically (and repeatedly) call “post-corporate” media.

Let’s not forget that McChesney has argued (during an interview on the Canadian-based “Socialist Project”) that “the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists,” and that, “unless you make significant changes in the media, it will be vastly more difficult to have a revolution.”  So, it’s important to keep his true intentions in mind when he starts claiming to have found “a libertarian’s dream” of a solution to what ails America’s media sector.^[52] It sounds more like a central planner’s dream.  The true “libertarian’s dream” would be to leave Americans free to make their own choices about media without additional meddling from the State, and to look to innovation to fund media through a combination of advertising, sponsorship, subscriptions and micropayments.

Related PFF Publications

• The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 2: Broadcast Spectrum Taxes to Subsidize Public Media , Adam Thierer, Progress on Point 17.2, March 2010.
• The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 1: Taxes on Consumer Electronics, Mobile Phones & Broadband, Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, PFF Progress on Point 17.1, March 2010.
• Testimony at FCC’s Hearing on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era”, Adam Thierer, March 2010.
• Public Option for Press Should Get the Red Pen, Adam Thierer, The Daily Caller, Jan. 2010.
• Chairman Leibowitz’s Disconnect on Privacy Regulation & the Future of News, Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, Progress Snapshot 6.1, Jan. 13, 2010.
• Socializing Media in Order to Save It, Adam Thierer, City Journal, March 2009.
• A Manifesto for Media Freedom, Adam Thierer and Brian Anderson, 2008.
• Media Ownership Proceedings, W. Kenneth Ferree, Testimony before the Federal Communications Commission, Nov. 3, 2009.
• Media Myths: Making Sense of the Debate over Media Ownership, Adam Thierer, June 2005.

[1] Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 1: Taxes on Consumer Electronics, Mobile Phones & Broadband, PFF Progress on Point 17.1, March 2010, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2010/pop17.1-the_wrong_way_to_reinvent_media.pdf.

[2] Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 2: Broadcast Spectrum Taxes to Subsidize Public Media, Progress on Point 17.2, March 2010, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2010/pop17.2-wrong_way_part_2.pdf

[3] “Until now, the iron core of news has been somewhat sheltered by an economic model that was able to provide extra resources beyond what readers—and advertisers—would financially support. This kind of news is expensive to produce, especially investigative reporting.” Alex S. Jones, Losing the News: The Future of the News that Feeds Democracy (2009) at 4.

[4] “For a long time, publishers have used news as a ‘loss leader,’ a product sold below costs to create other sales.” The Media Consortium, The Big Thaw: Charting a New Future for Journalism, July 2009, at 36, www.themediaconsortium.org/thebigthaw.

[5] James T. Hamilton notes that, “nonpartisan reporting emerged as a commercial product in American newspaper markets in the 1870s.  Before that time, many papers openly proclaimed association with a particular political party.”  James T. Hamilton, All the News That’s Fit to Sell (2004), at 3.

[6] The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently kicked off a new “Future of Media” effort with a workshop on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era.” See Federal Communications Commission, FCC Launches Examination of the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in a Digital Age, FCC Public Notice, GN Docket No. 10-25, Jan. 21, 2010, at 2, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-100A1.pdf

[7] The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has hosted two workshops asking “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/index.shtml

[8] Both the Senate and House of Representatives have held hearings about “the future of journalism,” and Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) recently introduced the “Newspaper Revitalization Act,” which would allow newspapers to become nonprofit organizations in an effort to help them stay afloat—but also curtail their political editorializing.  See http://cardin.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=310392.

[9] Robert W. McChesney & John Nichols, The Death and Life of American Journalism (2010) at 201-206. McChesney discussed this idea in more detail when he spoke at the recent FTC event on saving journalism.  Robert W. McChesney, Rejuvenating American Journalism: Some Tentative Policy Proposals, Presentation to FTC Workshop on Journalism, March 10, 2010, www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/mar9/docs/mcchesney.pdf

[10] Dean Baker, The Artistic Freedom Voucher: An Internet Age Alternative to Copyrights, Nov. 5, 2003, www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ip_2003_11.pdf.

[11] Free Press, Saving the News: Toward a National Journalism Strategy, May 2009, at 36, www.freepress.net/files/saving_the_news.pdf.

[12] McChesney & Nichols, supra note 9 at 205.

[13] Id. at 204.

[14] Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (2008).

[15] They define choice architecture as follows:  “A structure designed by a choice architect(s) to improve the quality of decisions made by homo sapiens. Often invisible, choice architecture is the specific user-friendly shape of an organization’s policy or physical building when homo sapiens come into contact with it. Examples of choice architecture include a voter ballot, a procedure for handling well-meaning people who forget a deadline, or a skyscraper.”  Nudge Glossary of Terms, www.nudges.org/glossary.cfm.

[16] See Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, What Unites Advocates of Speech Controls & Privacy Regulation?, Progress on Point 16.19, Aug. 11, 2009, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2009/pop16.19-unites-speech-and-privacy-reg-advocates.pdf.

[17] As Glen Whitman notes in challenging such “nudging”: “the new paternalism carries a serious risk of expansion. Following its policy recommendations places us on a slippery slope from soft paternalism to hard. This would be true even if policymakers — including legislators, judges, bureaucrats, and voters — were completely rational. But the danger is especially great if policymakers exhibit the same cognitive biases attributed to the people they’re trying to help.”  Glen Whitman, The Rise of the New Paternalism, Cato Unbound, April 5, 2010, www.cato-unbound.org/2010/04/05/glen-whitman/the-rise-of-the-new-paternalism.

[18] Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Why Expansion of the FCC’s Public Interest Regulatory Regime is Unwise, Unneeded, Unconstitutional, and Unenforceable, Testimony Before the Federal Communications Commission Hearing on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era,” March 4, 2010, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/testimony/2010/2010-03-04-Thierer_Remarks_at_FCC_Hearing.pdf.

[19] Ellen P. Goodman, “Proactive Media Policy in an Age of Content Abundance,” in Philip M. Napoli, ed., Media Diversity and Localism: Meaning and Metrics (2007) at 370, 374.

[20] Id.

[21] Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (1922), at 53, 57.

[22] For example, among other things, McChesney and Nichols call for a 5% tax on consumer electronics, a 3% tax on monthly ISP & cell phone bills, a 2% sales tax on advertising, and a 7% tax on broadcasters.  See McChesney & Nichols, supra note 9 at 209-11.

[23] Id. at 202.

[24] Id.

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] Id. at 205.

[28] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001289_who_pays.pdf

[29] McChesney & Nichols, supra note 9 at 205.

[30] Jonathan Weisman, Economic Policy ‘Nudge’ Gives Way to a Shove, Wall Street Journal, March 8, 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575103980232739138.html.

[31] http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

[32] McChesney & Nichols, supra note 9 at 205.

[33] Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 194 (1991).

[34] Id. (emphasis added).

[35] Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 833 (1995) (emphasis added).

[36] Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 US 533, 542 (2001).  The Court in Rosenberger noted:

even in the provision of subsidies, the Government may not “ai[m] at the suppression of dangerous ideas,” Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Wash., 461 U.S. 540, 550 (1983), and if a subsidy were “manipulated” to have a “coercive effect,” then relief could be appropriate. See Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 237 (1987) (Scalia, J., dissenting); see also Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439, 447 (1991) (“[D]ifferential taxation of First Amendment speakers is constitutionally suspect when it threatens to suppress the expression of particular ideas or viewpoints”). In addition…, a more pressing constitutional question would arise if Government funding resulted in the imposition of a disproportionate burden calculated to drive “certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace.” Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 116 (1991).

Id. at 587.

[37] 531 U.S. at 542.

[38] Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 833 (1995).  The University’s rule prohibited funding of any group that “primarily promotes or manifests a particular belie[f] in or about a deity or an ultimate reality.”

[39] National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569, 574 (1998).

[40] 524 U.S. at 583 (quoting R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (internal quotations omitted).

[41] Id. at 584 (citing  Board of Ed., Island Trees Union Free School Dist. No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 871 (1982); see also Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 683 (1986)).

[42] Id. at 587.

[43] 515 U.S. 819 (1995).

[44] U.S. v. American Library Association, Inc., 539 U.S. 194 (2003).  See generally Robert Corn-Revere, United States v. American Library Association: A Missed Opportunity for the Supreme Court to Clarify Application of First Amendment Law to Publicly Funded Expressive Institutions, Cato Supreme Court Rev. 105, 2003, www.cato.org/pubs/scr2003/publiclyfunded.pdf.

[45] Id. at 207 (quoting Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 834).

[46] McChesney & Nichols, supra note 9 at 192, 199.

[47] “If, on the request of an adult user, a librarian will unblock filtered material or disable the Internet software filter without significant delay, there is little to this case.” American Library Association, 539 U.S. at 214 (Kennedy, J. concurring).  Justice Souter agreed that it would ‘‘tak[e] the curse off the statute for all practical purposes’’ if adult patrons could obtain an unblocked Internet terminal ‘‘simply for the asking,’’ but doubted this would actually happen in practice.  Id. at 232.

[48] Cf. Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 584 (“Educational programs are central to the NEA’s mission.… And it is well established that ‘decency’ is a permissible factor where ‘educational suitability’ motivates its consideration.”).

[49] See www.nakednews.com.

[50] Id. at 205.

[51] See Adam Thierer, Closing the Book on COPA?, Technology Liberation Front, Jan. 21, 2009, http://techliberation.com/2009/01/21/closing-the-book-on-copa/.

[52] Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Free Press, Robert McChesney & the “Struggle” for Media, Aug. 10, 2009, http://blog.pff.org/archives/2009/08/free_press_robert_mcchesney_the_struggle_for_media.html

Wrong Way to Reinvent Media Part 3 – Media Vouchers [Thierer & Szoka – PFF] http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

Good to see so many media industry executives expressing skepticism about the idea of government subsidies for the press. Danny Glover brought to my attention this new survey by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism in association with the American Society of News Editors (ASNE) and the Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA). It revealed that, “Fully 75% of all news executives surveyed—and 88% of newspaper executives—said they had ‘serious reservations,’ or the highest level of concern, about direct subsidies from the government.” A smaller percentage (only 46%) had serious reservations about tax credits for news organizations, then again, only 13% said they “would welcome such funding” and just 6% said they were “enthusiastic” about it.

This is encouraging news as many government officials at the FCC, FTC, and in Congress are currently considering whether government should steps to prop up failing media entities or promote certainly types of content. Berin Szoka and I have been working on a series of essays about the wrong ways to go about reinventing media [see Part 1, Part 2] and plan several more installments leading up to a big filing in the FCC’s “Future of Media” proceeding (the deadline is May 7^th).

Here’s a chart from the Pew survey illustrating funding alternatives and the percentage who had “serious reservations” about each option:

In the latest PFF TechCast, I discuss the issues considered in the second essay in our ongoing series, “The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media.”  In this 6-minute podcast, PFF’s press director Mike Wendy chats with me about proposals to impose taxes on broadcast spectrum licenses to funnel money to public media or “public interest” content.  In my paper and this podcast, I make the case again socially engineering media choices and outcomes through the tax code.

MP3 file: PFF TechCast #2 – Saving the Media Through Broadcast Spectrum Taxes (4/5/2010)

As mentioned last week, in a new series of essays, PFF scholars will be examining proposals that would have the government play a greater role in sustaining struggling media enterprises, “saving journalism,” or promoting more “public interest” content. With many traditional media operators struggling, and questions being raised about how journalism in particular will be supported in the future, Washington policymakers are currently considering what role government can and should play in helping media providers reinvent themselves in the face of tumultuous technological change wrought by the Digital Revolution. We will be releasing 6 or 7 essays on this topic leading up to our big filing in the FCC’s “Future of Media” proceeding (deadline is May 7^th).  And here’s a podcast Berin Szoka and I did providing an overview of the series.

In the first installment of the series, Berin and I critiqued an old idea that’s suddenly gained new currency: taxing media devices or distribution systems to fund media content. In the second installment, “The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 2: Broadcast Spectrum Taxes to Subsidize Public Media,” I discuss proposals to impose a tax on broadcast spectrum licenses to funnel money to public media projects or other “public interest” content or objectives. Such a tax would be fundamentally unfair to broadcasters, who are struggling for their very survival in the midst of unprecedented marketplace turmoil.  Moreover, such a tax is unnecessary in light of the many other sources of “public interest” programming available today. Finally, even if the government creates or subsidizes wonderful, civic- and culturally-enriching content, there’s no way to force people to consume it.  Nor should government force such media choices upon the public. There’s no good reason for government to be socially-engineering media choices through taxes.

I’ve attached the entire essay down below.

The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 2: Broadcast Spectrum Taxes to Subsidize Public Media

PFF Progress on Point 17.2 [PDF]

by Adam Thierer*

In an ongoing series of essays, we‘re discussing proposals to have the government play a greater role in the media sector in the name of sustaining struggling enterprises or “saving journalism.”  Washington policymakers are currently considering what, if any, role government can and should play in assisting media operators, supporting journalism, or expanding public media.  For example, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently kicked off a new “Future of Media” effort with a workshop on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era.” Likewise, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has hosted two workshops on “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?”  Meanwhile, the Senate has already held hearings about “the future of journalism,” and Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) recently introduced the “Newspaper Revitalization Act,” which would allow newspapers to become nonprofit organizations in an effort to help them stay afloat—but also curtail their political editorializing.

Part 1 of this series examined proposals to fund media content via a tax on consumer electronics, broadband service, or cell phone bills.^[1] Other essays will address proposals to tax private advertising revenues to support public media; directly subsidize out-of-work journalists; expand postal subsidies; and to prop up or bail out failing media entities.  A wrap-up essay will then focus on some potentially constructive policy reforms that could assist media enterprises without a massive infusion of state support or regulation of the press.

This essay will discuss proposals to impose a tax on broadcast spectrum licenses to funnel money to public media projects or other “public interest” content or objectives.^[2] Such a tax would be fundamentally unfair to broadcasters, who are struggling for their very survival in the midst of unprecedented marketplace turmoil.  Moreover, such a tax is unnecessary in light of the many other sources of “public interest” programming available today. Finally, even if the government creates or subsidizes wonderful, civic- and culturally-enriching content, there’s no way to force people to consume it.  Nor should government force such media choices upon the public. There’s no good reason for government to be socially-engineering media choices through taxes.

Why the “Public Interest” Regulatory Regime Can’t Continue

There’s always been a bit of mythology surrounding so-called “public interest” regulation of broadcasting in America.^[3] Those who advocate expansive regulatory obligations for licensed radio and television operators typically claim they’re directing the content or character of broadcasting toward a nobler end—a sort of noblesse oblige for the Information Age.  At times, their rhetoric takes on a fairy-tale quality as lawmakers and regulatory advocates speak of “the public interest” in reverential and fantastic terms, all the while deftly evading any attempt to define the term.  Indeed, while public interest regulation has been considered the cornerstone of communications and media policy since the 1930s, at no time during these seven decades has the term been adequately defined.[4]

Former FCC Commissioner Glen Robinson has argued that the public interest standard “is vague to the point of vacuousness, providing neither guidance nor constraint on the agency’s action.”^[5] And Nobel Prize-winning economist Ronald Coase argued 50 years ago that “The phrase… lacks any definite meaning.  Furthermore, the many inconsistencies in commission decisions have made it impossible for the phrase to acquire a definite meaning in the process of regulation.”^[6]

And that is still true today.  Simply put, the public interest standard is not really a “standard” at all since it has no fixed meaning; the definition of the phrase has shifted with the political winds to suit the whims of those in power at any given time.[7] Nonetheless, the public interest regulatory regime remains with us and continues to apply to licensed broadcast radio and television operators.

Regardless of the rationale used to advance public interest regulation—public spectrum ownership, licensing, scarcity,^[8] pervasiveness,^[9] or “public enlightenment”—it is hard to explain why we have singled out broadcasters for unique regulatory obligations while operators of other media platforms have been given a free pass.  Such regulatory asymmetry is more difficult to justify today in light of rising competition for many new platforms and players.^[10] And it is difficult to believe that Congress or the FCC could concoct a constitutionally-defensible rationale for extending “public interest” regulation to new media platforms.^[11] Indeed, efforts to do so for both old (newspapers, print) and new (Internet, video games) media have failed when tested in the courts.  And, practically speaking, even if expansion of the old regime was desirable, it would be exceedingly difficult to do so in light of the sheer scale and volume of new media that would need to be covered.^[12]

Spending Money Instead of Imposing Mandates?

The combination of these factors has forced many traditional public interest regulatory advocates to reconsider the wisdom—or at least the practicality—of the old broadcasting regime.  One alternative that has received increasing attention in recent years would see broadcasters largely relieved of their public interest obligations and charged instead an annual fee for their use of the airwaves.  The proceeds from such a spectrum fee or tax would then be used to subsidize a variety of programs or content.  For example:

• Henry Geller, a former FCC general counsel, first advocated such a spectrum fee scheme as a method of financing more public broadcasting programming.^[13]
• Likewise, Charles Firestone, executive director of the Aspen Institute’s Communications and Society Program, has argued that the scheme could fund “educational programs for children, free political spots on an equal opportunities basis, public service announcements, or other programming that the Government wants.”[14]
• American Enterprise Institute scholar Norman Ornstein has advocated that the money be spent on a “Public Square” channel to “focus on local and national politics, policy issues, debates, campaigns, and other vital issues.”^[15]
• Elsewhere, along with Paul Taylor, Ornstein has said the money raised from such fees might be spent to ensure greater election coverage or to subsidize political advertising.^[16]
• Leonard Downie, Jr., Vice President at Large of The Washington Post, and Michael Schudson, a Professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, have advocated the creation of a “Fund for Local News” that “would make grants for advances in local news reporting and innovative ways to support it.”^[17] The Fund would make grants to news organizations through “Local News Fund Councils” and would be financed by “fees paid by radio and television licensees, or proceeds from auctions of telecommunications spectrum, or new fees imposed on Internet service providers.”^[18]
• Most recently, Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols, authors of the new book The Death and Life of American Journalism, have proposed a 7% tax on broadcasters, which they estimate would generate $3-6 billion annually.  They would use it to fund some combination of all of the above items and far more, including welfare for journalists.^[19]

A Spectrum Tax as a Regulatory Reparations Policy

We might think of spectrum tax proposals as a sort of reparations policy for the regulatory sins of the past.  That is, broadcast spectrum fees are typically pitched as a way to “repay the public” for use of the spectrum that broadcasters obtained originally at no charge.  As Charles Firestone explains, in theory, the spectrum fee proposal:

provides a specific dollar value to the trade-off that has traditionally marked the public trusteeship theory of broadcast regulation. That is, for the initial grant and/or exclusive use of a valuable frequency, protected against interference or encroachment by governmental enforcement mechanisms, the broadcaster serves the needs and interests of the local audience service area.[20]

But like the “public interest” standard itself, spectrum taxes are also an idea whose time has passed.^[21] Broadcast spectrum fees make little sense today, even if the notion might have made some sense two or three decades ago as a method of monetizing public interest obligations.

First, using spectrum fees as a reparations policy today fails to “punish” those who originally got their spectrum free-of-charge.  The vast majority of broadcast spectrum licenses have traded hands in the secondary market for lucrative sums.  In many cases, those television and radio properties have traded hands numerous times.  Thus, the current spectrum-holders who would be taxed are generally not the beneficiaries of any “windfall,” but have instead paid competitive market prices for the spectrum they use that should be roughly commensurate with the economic value of that spectrum (at least for the limited range of uses allowed by the FCC).

Second, although broadcasting remains an important medium, its once-supreme relevance has eroded significantly over the past three decades.  Even Norm Ornstein, a defender of broadcast spectrum fees, has noted that “Over-the-air broadcasting is a dinosaur.  It’s not going to last very long.”^[22] Although that might be hyperbole, it’s certainly true that whatever weight the broadcast medium might have had in the past, that is now ancient history.

For most of the past century, broadcasting was a fairly stable industry that did not witness business model-shattering types of changes.  As its very name implies, broadcasting attracted broad audiences.  Consequently, returns were stable, even substantial at times.  Today, however, stability has given way to volatility.  The entire media marketplace is in a state of seemingly constant upheaval.  Long-standing industry players are shedding assets or even disappearing as underdogs rapidly enter the sector and become big dogs overnight.  This has become a textbook example of Schumpeterian “creative destruction” in action.^[23]

Consider what this has meant for broadcasters in terms of audience share and advertising revenues.  Start with broadcast television.  The television audience has grown increasingly fragmented since the 1950s.  The top shows on TV during that era ( e.g., “I Love Lucy”) garnered 40-50% of the viewing audience.  By the 1970s, the top broadcast TV shows (e.g., “All in the Family”) were pulling in roughly 30% of the audience.  Today, however, with so many other media options vying for our increasingly scarce attention, the top shows on television (e.g., “American Idol”) are lucky to break 15% and most shows rarely break single digits.

The “problem” is growing competition for eyeballs.  Broadcasters face a growing array of rivals: cable and satellite multi-channel distributors; DVDs and Netflix; VOD and online video; video game platforms; and much more.  According to Nielsen Media Research, the “Big 3” networks of the past (ABC, CBS, NBC), which held 90% of the primetime market in 1980, control only 30% share today.  In terms of total day shares, cable blew past broadcast television at the turn of the century and never looked back.  The advertising situation is equally bleak for television broadcasters.  According to McCann Erickson Worldwide, broadcast television’s overall share of media advertising revenues dipped below 20% back in 1990 and continues to fall steadily, standing at approximately 15% today.

Unsurprisingly, the financial outlook for the broadcast TV sector is bleak.  “Almost all the indicators for local TV are pointing down,” notes the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism in its annual State of the News Media report.  It continues:

Revenue, too, was in a free fall.  Ad revenue is always lower in a year without federal elections or the Olympics, but the drop in 2009 was especially severe even with the unexpected bounty of political spending on health care legislation.  Revenues were estimated to have fallen by 22% from the year before.  The last two non-election years, by contrast, recorded much smaller declines: 5% in 2005 and 6% in 2007.  Looking ahead, most market analysts project revenues to grow only slightly, in the 3%-to-5% range in 2010, but that is hardly taken as good news given that it is a year that will include both the off-year elections and winter Olympic games.^[24]

In light of the recent turmoil, some major network television executives are now thinking about doing what was unthinkable just a decade ago: casting off their local broadcast affiliates and repurposing their content on alternative media platforms ( e.g., cable, satellite, Internet). For example, in early 2009, CBS Corp. President and CEO Les Moonves told an investor conference that moving all CBS network programming to cable and satellite platforms would be “a very interesting proposition.”^[25] If television networks start following their audience in the continuing mass exodus to alternative distribution platforms, how would local broadcast affiliates pay for a new federal spectrum fee? Even if that scenario does not develop, local television broadcasters face an uncertain future, and likely declining revenues for some time to come.

The situation for broadcast radio operators is even grimmer.  The competition for our ears has never been more intense with satellite radio, non-commercial radio, iPods and MP3 players, online radio, downloadable music, podcasting, etc. with terrestrial broadcasters for audience share.  As a result, radio operators have seen their audiences dwindle and their revenues nose-dive. According to Arbitron, time spent listening to radio has dropped for every age demographic they’ve measured for the past decade.  And BIA Financial Network notes that while the radio revenue growth rate ran between 7% and 14% during the late 1990s, the industry hasn’t seen growth above 3% since 2002 and in recent years growth has rarely broken 1%.  Furthermore, the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism reports that:^[26]

• Total radio revenue was down 18% in 2009 from 2008, according to the Radio Advertising Bureau.
• Local and national radio advertising—the biggest sources of revenue for radio—were both down and projected to continue falling at least through 2011.  There was growth in online advertising, but not enough to make up for the loss of on-air advertising.
• National and local advertising fell by 20% and 19% respectively in 2009 compared to 2008.  Local advertising has always been radio’s lifeblood.
• Online advertising revenue saw a 13% increase in 2009, but represented only 3% of industry advertising revenue and was not enough to offset the losses in other categories.
• Off-air revenues, such as billboards and concert sponsorships, fell 9% in 2009 compared to 2008, to 1.3 billion.  While these revenues currently make up only a small part of radio revenue, the continued decline of national and local advertising may add to their importance.

Again, can struggling radio broadcasters absorb the added burden of a new national spectrum tax in light of their precarious situation? Indeed, it’s numbers like these that usually leads intervention-minded analysts to advocate subsidies, not taxes, for some struggling media entities!

Where Would the Money Go?

Questions also surround the pool of funds that would be amassed through the creation of a broadcast spectrum fee.  Given the declining fortunes of the broadcast industry, it seems unlikely the fee would generate as much revenue as some proponents might imagine. Let’s assume, however, that the spectrum levy netted respectable sums.  How would those funds be used?

America’s recent experience with spectrum auction proceeds suggests that Congress would first look to use a spectrum fee to pay for federal spending priorities or pay off past budget deficits instead of channeling those funds to new “public square” or “public interest” initiatives.  But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume Congress honored a pledge to use the broadcast fee only for its intended purpose.  What exactly counts as a “public square” or “public interest” initiative, and who would be in charge of it?

Some proponents of a spectrum fee seem to long for a world in which everything looks or sounds like a combination of National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service, and cable “public access” channels.  But regardless of the quality of such networks or the programming on them, the viewing and listening public has shown a clear desire for programming of a very different nature.  While critics might lament what they regard as the “low-brow” entertainment or supposedly lower-quality news seen or heard on some commercial networks or stations, there is no denying that citizens tune in to commercial programs in very large numbers.  Whether regulatory advocates care to admit it, supply and demand are at work in America’s media marketplace and citizens vote with their eyes and ears all the time.  Media scholar Ben Compaine, co-author of Who Owns the Media?, focuses on the real issue here, choice:

If large segments of the public choose to watch, read, or listen to content from a relatively small number of media companies, that should not distract policy makers from the key word there: choose. … It may indeed be that at any given moment 80 percent of the audience is viewing or reading or listening to something from the 10 largest media players.  But that does not mean it is the same 80 percent all the time, or that it is cause for concern.^[27]

Commenting on efforts to make the modern media landscape look more like PBS or NPR, Compaine notes: “Content might well be different.  But it wouldn’t necessarily be better.… This might work only in a … world of enforced equality, where no democracy of content was allowed, where the voice of the audience was not heard.”^[28] He notes that PBS is instructive in this regard since, even in the days when it only had three primary rivals, it could rarely get the attention of more than 2% of the total TV audience.  And as television journalist Jeff Greenfield has noted, “[W]hen you no longer need the skills of a safecracker to find PBS in most markets, you have to realize that the reason people aren’t watching is that they don’t want to.”^[29]

Simply put, in a world of unlimited options and freedom of media choice, there’s just no way to force the audience to tune in.^[30] Absent truly repressive measures to limit choice or alter consumer media consumption patterns, it will be impossible for policymakers to force the masses to pay attention to what they want them to see or hear in an age of abundant media content and unrestricted choice.  “[R]egulation cannot, in a liberal democracy, force viewers to consume media products they do not think they want in the name of the public interest,” argues Ellen P. Goodman of the Rutgers-Camden School of Law.^[31]

Our Many “Public Squares”

More importantly, there seems to be little need for a new spectrum fee for “public interest” content or a “public square” channel in light of the explosion of civic-oriented and culturally enriching programming on both traditional and new media platforms.  In essence, we now have many “public square” channels.

For example, the growth of news channels and programs (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Current TV, many financial news networks, and more) and international news outlets (BBC America, CNN International, etc.) has been well-documented.  Most notable in this regard is the stunning success of the cable industry’s C-SPAN network and its sister properties.^[32] But these cable news channels and programs are also a growing force online as well.  “Like their television programs, the major cable news channels’ websites attracted record viewership in 2008, driven in a large part by the political and economic news of the year,” reports the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism.^[33] Moreover, these cable news sites “have also evolved into true multimedia destinations.  All now feature video archives, RSS feeds and features for accessing the sites on mobile devices.  They all offer live streaming content.”^[34] Meanwhile, C-SPAN recently created the C-SPAN Video Library,[35] which archives 23 years worth (1987-on) of fully searchable (and free) video content, including: 161,000 overall hours of programming; 56,600 hours of House & Senate floor activity; and, 20,152 hours of House & Senate committee hearings.[36]

Americans have many other ways of finding important news and civic information online.  The 2008 presidential election serves as a dramatic illustration of how voters have become better informed and how candidates have exciting new ways to connect with them.  The Pew Internet & American Life Project found that “some 74% of Internet users—representing 55% of the entire adult population—went online in 2008 to get involved in the political process or to get news and information about the election.”^[37] And President Barack Obama’s unprecedented use of new media tools during 2008 is often credited with helping to propel him into the White House.  Millions of Americans made their views known about various issues on sites such as Obama’s Change.gov website.  Wired reported that “Obama’s online success dwarfed [Senator John McCain’s], and proved key to his winning the presidency.”^[38]

Volunteers used Obama’s website to organize a thousand phone-banking events in the last week of the race—and 150,000 other campaign-related events over the course of the campaign.  Supporters created more than 35,000 groups clumped by affinities like geographical proximity and shared pop-cultural interests.  By the end of the campaign, myBarackObama.com chalked up some 1.5 million accounts.  And Obama raised a record-breaking $600 million in contributions from more than three million people, many of whom donated through the web.^[39]

Four years earlier, Joe Trippi, former campaign manager of Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign and the author of The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Democracy, The Internet, and The Overthrow of Everything, had noted that the Dean campaign’s heavy use of new, interactive media and communications technologies was, “a sneak preview of coming attractions—the interplay between new technologies and old institutions.  The end result will be massive communities completely redefining our politics, our commerce, our government, and the entire public fabric our culture.”^[40] He concluded: “what we are seeing—at its core—is a political phenomenon, a democratic movement that proceeds from our civic lives and naturally spills over in the music we hear, the clothes we buy, the causes we support.”^[41] President Obama’s campaign certainly seems to have been proof of that.

Of course, all this comes in addition to the stunning proliferation of user-generation media such as blogs, discussion boards, listservs, social networking sites, Twitter, You Tube, and so on.  Dan Gillmor, author of We the Media: Grassroots Journalism By the People, For the People, notes just how profound the impact of new media and citizen journalism will be:

Tomorrow’s news reporting and production will be more of a conversation, or a seminar.  The lines will blur between produces and consumers, changing the role of both in ways we’re only beginning to grasp now.  The communications network itself will be a medium for everyone’s voice, not just the few who can afford to buy multimillion-dollar printing presses, launch satellites, or win the government’s permission to squat on the public’s airwaves.^[42]

Likewise, in its recent State of the News Media 2010 report, the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism reported that “Citizen journalism at the local level is expanding rapidly and brimming with innovation.”^[43] The report also noted that:

highly promising citizen and alternative sites are emerging daily.  Imaginative news formats, partnerships, formats, technological capabilities and passionate supporters of journalism values offer significant reasons for optimism as journalism continues its mission to inform citizens, make their lives better and nurture democratic processes.^[44]

Conclusion

In light of these developments, it’s hard to take seriously the charge that “deliberative democracy” is somehow on the decline in America and that the imposition of a spectrum fee to create a government-controlled “public square channel” or more “public interest” content in general would actually change the constitution of news, culture, or civic engagement in any significant way.  And even if government creates or subsidizes wonderful, civic- and culturally-enriching content, there’s no way to force people to consume it.

Finally, regardless of how spectrum fee proceeds might be spent, the proposal raises fundamental fairness issues for broadcasters.  Indeed, it is doubly insulting for them.  Not only has public broadcasting and non-commercial media been siphoning off more and more market share in recent years, but this proposal would impose a new tax on private broadcasters to fund those competitors (or some other media outlets) at a time when broadcasters are struggling for their very existence.  If Congress imposed a spectrum fee on broadcasters, it would essentially be signing a death warrant for the medium.  It’s hard to see how that’s in “the public interest.”

Related PFF Publications

• The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 1: Taxes on Consumer Electronics, Mobile Phones & Broadband, Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, PFF Progress on Point 17.1, March 2010.
• Testimony at FCC’s Hearing on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era”, Adam Thierer, March 2010.
• Public Option for Press Should Get the Red Pen, Adam Thierer, The Daily Caller, Jan. 2010.
• Chairman Leibowitz’s Disconnect on Privacy Regulation & the Future of News, Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, Progress Snapshot 6.1, Jan. 13, 2010.
• Socializing Media in Order to Save It, Adam Thierer, City Journal, March 2009.
• A Manifesto for Media Freedom, Adam Thierer & Brian Anderson, 2008.
• Media Ownership Proceedings, W. Kenneth Ferree, Testimony before the Federal Communications Commission, Nov. 3, 2009.
• Media Myths: Making Sense of the Debate over Media Ownership, Adam Thierer, June 2005.

[2] This essay is condensed from a chapter that appeared in a new book from Congressional Quarterly Press. See: Resolved, Broadcasters Should be Charged a Spectrum Fee to Finance Programming in the Public Interest, Pro: Norm Ornstein, Con: Adam Thierer, in Richard J. Ellis and Michael Nelson, Debating Reform: Conflicting Perspectives on How to Fix the American Political System (2010) at 53-69.

[3] See generally Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Media Myths: Understanding the Debate over Media Ownership (2005) at 85-104, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/books/050610mediamyths.pdf.

[4] Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Why Expansion of the FCC’s Public Interest Regulatory Regime is Unwise, Unneeded, Unconstitutional, and Unenforceable, Testimony Before the Federal Communications Commission Hearing on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era,” March 4, 2010, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/testimony/2010/2010-03-04-Thierer_Remarks_at_FCC_Hearing.pdf.

[5] Glen O. Robinson, The Federal Communications Act: An Essay on Origins and Regulatory Purpose, in A Legislative History of the Communications Act of 1934 3, 14 (Max D. Paglin ed., 1989). Likewise, Lawrence J. White has noted that, “The ‘public interest’ is a vague, ill-defined concept. Under the ‘public interest’ banner the Congress and the FCC have established far too many protectionist, anticompetitive, anti-innovative, inflexible, output-limiting regulatory regimes and have unnecessarily infringed on the First Amendment rights of broadcasters.” See Lawrence J. White, Spectrum for Sale, The Milken Institute Review (June 2001) at 38. See also William T. Mayton, The Illegitimacy of the Public Interest Standard at the FCC, 38 Emory Law Journal 715, 716 (1989).

[6] Ronald H. Coase, The Federal Communications Commission, 2 J. L. & Econ. 1, 8–9 (1959). Even supporters of broadcast regulation such as Paul Taylor and Norman Ornstein admit that, “neither in the 1927 [Radio] Act nor in the 1934 [Communications] Act, nor subsequently, did Congress define clearly what actions by broadcasters would represent managing their stations in the public interest.” Paul Taylor & Norman Ornstein, New America Foundation, A Broadcast Spectrum Fee for Campaign Finance Reform, Spectrum Series Working Paper No. 4, (2002) at 6.

[7] See Adam Thierer, Media Myths: Making Sense of the Debate over Media Ownership (2005) at 85-104; www.pff.org/issues-pubs/books/050610mediamyths.pdf; Adam Thierer, Is the Public Served by the Public Interest Standard? The Freeman, Vol. 46, No. 9, Sept. 1996, at 618-20, www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/is-the-public-served-by-the-public-interest-standard; William T. Mayton, The Illegitimacy of the Public Interest Standard at the FCC, 38 Emory Law Journal, 1989, at 715-69.

[8] See John W. Berresford, Federal Communications Commission, The Scarcity Rationale for Regulating Traditional Broadcasting: An Idea Whose Time Has Passed, FCC Media Bureau, Staff Research Paper No. 2005-2, (March 2005) www.fcc.gov/ownership/materials/already-released/scarcity030005.pdf. Berresford refers to the scarcity rationale as “outmoded,” “based on fundamental misunderstandings of physics and economics,” and “no longer valid.”

[9] Adam Thierer, Why Regulate Broadcasting : Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age, 15 CommLaw Conspectus (Summer 2007) at 431-482; http://commlaw.cua.edu/articles/v15/15_2/Thierer.pdf.

[10] See Adam Thierer & Grant Eskelsen, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace, Summer 2008, www.pff.org/mediametrics.

[11] Thierer, supra note 4.

[12] Id. at 7-12.

[13] “By taking some modest fee from commercial broadcasters for their use of the public spectrum in lieu of the public trustee obligation, noncommercial television could be adequately funded to deliver high-quality public service programming.” Henry Geller, Geller to FCC: Scrap the Rules, Try a Spectrum Fee, Current.org, Oct. 30, 2000, www.current.org/why/why0020geller.shtml. Also see Henry Geller, Promoting the Public Interest in the Digital Era, Federal Communications Law Journal, Vol. 55, No. 3, 2003, www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v55/no3/Geller.pdf.

[14] Charles M. Firestone, The Aspen Institute, The Spectrum Check Off Alternative to Public Interest Regulation of Broadcasters, www.aspeninstitute.org/policy-work/communications-society/papers-interest/-spectrum-check-alternative-public-interest-regul

[15] See Ornstein supra 2 at 61. Also see Remarks of Norman Ornstein at George Mason University event, The Gore Commission, 10 Years Later: The Public Interest Obligations of Digital TV Broadcasters in Perfect Hindsight, Oct. 3, 2008, www.iep.gmu.edu/documents/Ornstein.doc.

[16] Paul Taylor and Norman Ornstein, New America Foundation, A Broadcast Spectrum Fee for Campaign Finance Reform, Spectrum Series Working Paper #4, June 2002, www.newamerica.net/files/IssueBrief5.FreeAirTime.TaylorOrnstein.pdf.

[17] Leonard Downie, Jr. & Michael Schudson, The Reconstruction of American Journalism, Columbia Journalism Review, Oct. 20, 2009, at 92, available at www.scribd.com/doc/21268382/Reconstruction-of-Journalism.

[18] Id.

[19] See Robert W. McChesney & John Nichols, The Death and Life of American Journalism (2010) at 209-10.

[20] Firestone, supra note 14.

[21] Adam Thierer and Wayne Crews, Cato Institute, Just Don’t Do It: The Digital Opportunities Investment Trust (DO IT) Fund, Cato TechKnowledge, No. 35, May 6, 2002, www.cato.org/tech/tk/020506-tk.html

[22] Quoted in Neil Hickey, TV’s Big Stick: Why the Broadcast Industry Gets What it Wants in Washington, Columbia Journalism Review, September/October 2002, p. 53.

[23] See Thierer & Eskelsen, supra note 7.

[24] Pew Project For Excellence in Journalism, Local TV, The State of the News Media 2010, March 2010, www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/local_tv_summary_essay.php.

[25] Michael Grotticelli, Local TV Stations Face Uncertain Future, Broadcast Engineering, Feb. 23, 2009, http://broadcastengineering.com/news/local-stations-face-uncertain-future-0223.

[26] Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, Audio – Traditional Broadcast and Broadcast Online, The State of the News Media 2010, March 2010, www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/audio_traditional_broadcast.php.

[27] Ben Compaine, Domination Fantasies, Reason, Jan. 2004, at 33, http://reason.com/archives/2004/01/01/domination-fantasies

[28] Id.

[29] Quoted in Thomas G. Krattenmaker and Lucas A. Powe, Jr., Regulating Broadcast Programming (1994) at 314.

[30] Ellen P. Goodman of the Rutgers-Camden School of Law argues: “Given the proliferation of consumer filtering and choice, these kinds of interventions are of questionable efficacy. Consumers equipped with digital selection and filtering tools are likely to avoid content they do not demand no matter what the regulatory efforts to force exposure.” Ellen P. Goodman, “Proactive Media Policy in an Age of Content Abundance,” in Philip M. Napoli, ed., Media Diversity and Localism: Meaning and Metrics (2007) at 370, 374.  And there is no reason to believe this situation has ever been different or will ever change. Writing in 1922, famed journalist Walter Lippmann noted that, “it is possible to make a rough estimate only of the amount of attention people give each day to informing themselves about public affairs,” but “the time each day is small when any of us is directly exposed to information from our unseen environment.” Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (1922), p. 53, 57.

[31] Id. at 374.

[32] Importantly, many people fail to realize that C-SPAN is a private, non-profit company that is provided as a public service by cable industry contributions. It receives no government or taxpayer contributions. From 1979-2009, total license fees paid by cable & satellite companies to support C-SPAN totaled $922 million. See Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, C-SPAN, Civic-Minded Programming & Public Interest Regulation, PFF Blog, March 2, 2010, http://blog.pff.org/archives/2010/03/c-span_civic-minded_programming_public_interest_re.html

[33] Cable TV, in State of the News Media 2009, www.stateofthemedia.org/2009/narrative_cabletv_digitaltrends.php?media=7&cat=6/#key6

[34] Id.

[35] www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary

[36] See Thierer, supra note 28. See also Brian Stelter, C-Span Puts Full Archives on the Web, New York Times, March 15, 2010,  www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/arts/television/16cspan.html

[37] Aaron Smith, The Internet’s Role in Campaign 2008, The Pew Internet & American Life, April 15, 2009, www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/6–The-Internets-Role-in-Campaign-2008.aspx

[38] Sarah Lai Stirland, Propelled by Internet, Barack Obama Wins Presidency, Wired.com, Nov. 4, 2008,  www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/11/propelled-by-in

[39] Id.

[40] Joe Trippi, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Democracy, The Internet, and The Overthrow of Everything (2004), at 203. [emphasis original].

[41] Id.

[42] Dan Gillmor, We the Media: Grassroots Journalism By the People, For the People (2004), at xiii.

[43] Pew Project For Excellence in Journalism, Introduction, State of the News Media 2010, March 2010,   www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/overview_intro.php

[44] Pew Project For Excellence in Journalism, Community Journalism, State of the News Media 2010, March 2010,  www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/specialreports_community_journalism.php

Wrong Way to Reinvent Media Part 2 – Broadcast Spectrum Taxes [Thierer- PFF] http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

PFF recently started a new “TechCast” podcast series and the topic for one of our first episodes was about the new series of essays that we have coming out about “The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media.” In this series, we’re examining proposals that would have the government play a greater role in sustaining struggling media enterprises, “saving journalism,” or promoting more “public interest” content. We’re concerned about the prospect of central planning for media or a “public option” for the press.

Berin Szoka and I recently sat down with PFF’s press director Mike Wendy to chat about our concerns in this brief 5-minute podast:

[display_podcast]

MP3 file: PFF TechCast #1 – Overview of Wrong Way to Reinvent Media Series (3-28-2010)

Steve Forbes has an entertaining essay out today about the agenda of Free Press and its founder, the Marxist media scholar Robert McChesney. Forbes notes that McChesney has expressed a great deal of sympathy for the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and has even defended some of his tactics to control the press. This leads to his fear that McChesney and Free Press will convince the Obama Administration to use similar tactics here in the U.S.:

Once the federal government starts subsidizing our own free press, how long until the feds start revoking broadcast licenses of government opponents and bringing pesky reporters up on charges of say, “corruption” or “subversion”? According to McChesney and the Free Press folks, it apparently can’t happen soon enough.

To be fair, I haven’t heard anyone from Free Press defending Hugo Chavez or his tactics. But I do wonder why the organization continues to associate itself with such a radioactive figure like Mr. McChesney. After all, Forbes isn’t making up anything about McChesney, who is an outspoken, and self-described, Marxist media theorist. McChesney really has expressed sympathy for Chavez and said that, “If [Venezuelan broadcaster] RCTV were broadcasting in the United States, its license would have been revoked years ago. In fact its owners would likely have been tried for criminal offenses, including treason.” Far more troubling are Mr. McChesney’s views regarding how to reform media going forward, which I’ve documented in past essays in more detail. (See, “Free Press, Robert McChesney & the “Struggle” for Media,” “What the Media Reformistas Really Want,” and “Socializing Media in Order to Save It,.”) One need look no further than this lengthy interview with McChesney that appeared in an online newsletter called “The Bullet” produced by the Canada-based “Socialist Project.”

The whole thing is quite troubling to read, but here are a couple of jaw-droppers that make it clear just how radical Mr. McChesney’s worldview and agenda are:

• Media as an instrument of “revolution”: “Instead of waiting for the revolution to happen, we learned that unless you make significant changes in the media, it will be vastly more difficult to have a revolution. While the media is not the single most important issue in the world, it is one of the core issues that any successful Left project needs to integrate into its strategic program.”
• Down with commercial media: “Corporations are not in a position to generate and pay for quality journalism. The news is not a commercial product. It is a public good, necessary for a self-governing society.”
• Down with advertising, which is the engine of private media: “We need to organize against hyper-commercialism. This is an easy-sell for the Left. We understand that advertising is not something done by all people equally, but rather, done by a very small group of people working on behalf of multinational corporations. Advertising is commercial propaganda…  Advertising is the voice of capital. We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it, and perhaps even eliminate it.”
• Down with private communications networks: “What we want to have in the U.S. and in every society is an Internet that is not private property, but a public utility.”
• Kill media capitalism: “the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

And there’ more tripe like this to be found in this piece on “Journalism, Democracy,… and Class Struggle” in the socialist journal, Monthly Review:

• “Ultimately, we need to press for the overhaul of the media system, so that it serves democratic values rather than the interests of capital.”
• “Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism. It is impossible to conceive of a better world with a media system that remains under the thumb of Wall Street and Madison Avenue, under the thumb of the owning class. It is nearly impossible to conceive of the process of getting to a better world without some changes in the media status quo. We have no time to waste.”

But wait, there’s more! This from another Monthly Review essay:

• “The Big Lies protecting the corporate media system [are] that the United States had a free market media system, and that this was the system ordained as the only possible democratic one by the Founders in the Constitution.”
• “any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist political economy.”
• “No one thinks any longer that media reform is an issue to solve ‘after the revolution.’ Everyone understands that without media reform, there will be no revolution.”

Now, it would be easy to dismiss McChesney has just another half-crazed, unrepentant radical from the 60’s who is still sore about the Reds losing the Cold War, but the reality is that his thinking is beginning to filter down from the ivory tower and into mainstream politics. He’s now invited to address Federal Trade Commission workshops on “how to save journalism,” and his new book John Nichols, The Death and Life of American Journalism, has even received praise from some in government [at the 10-min mark of this video we hear Susan DeSanti, who is running the FTC’s effort, praising this “excellent book”] despite its call for radical steps to essentially hobble private media and impose crushing taxes on just about everyone in sight to subsidize public, state-blessed media.

Even if Free Press, the group McChesney founded, wisely avoids the radioactive rhetoric McChesney lets slip from his tongue on occasion, the group doesn’t avoid endorsing largely the same policy recommendations that McChesney supports.  I spelled out the current Free Press “media reform” agenda in this piece on, “A ‘Public Option’ for Media? The Free Press Plan to Put Journalists on the Public Dole.” And Berin Szoka and I have just started a new series of essays on “The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media,” in which we will further detail and critique the radical McChesney / Free Press policy agenda. This is leading up to the filing deadline in the FCC’s “Future of Media” proceeding, which is May 7^th.  We plan to file, and I very much look forward to seeing the Free Press filing in that matter to see if they turn up the volume even more or if they scale back the scope of their imperial ambitions.

So stay tuned, the battle for the future of media is really heating up. While I don’t agree with Steve Forbes that we’ll be staring at a Hugo Chavez-like police and propaganda state any time soon — after all, they haven’t repealed the First Amendment yet! — I do believe that what McChesney and Free Press are doing is greasing the skids for a massive infusion of government money and meddling into almost every facet of the American media sector.  Indeed, in many ways, this has been their radical “media reformista” agenda all along. It’s just that they’ve gotten a lot bolder about it, and now they even have some people in government taking them seriously.

[For more information, see my ongoing series: “Should Government Bailout Media, Subsidize the Press & Seek to “Save Journalism”?]

By Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka

As we mentioned yesterday, in a new series of essays, we will be examining proposals being put forward today that would have the government play a greater role in sustaining struggling media enterprises, “saving journalism,” or promoting more “public interest” content. With many traditional media operators struggling, and questions being raised about how journalism in particular will be supported in the future, Washington policymakers are currently considering what role government can and should play in helping media providers reinvent themselves in the face of tumultuous technological change wrought by the Digital Revolution. We will be releasing 6 or 7 essays on this topic leading up to our big filing in the FCC’s “Future of Media” proceeding (deadline is May 7^th).

In the first installment of our series, we will critique an old idea that’s suddenly gained new currency: taxing media devices or distribution systems to fund media content. We argue that such media income redistribution is fundamentally inconsistent with American press traditions, highly problematic under the First Amendment, difficult to implement in a world of media abundance and platform convergence, and likely to cause serious negative side effects.  Bottom line: Don’t tax our iPhones or broadband to subsidize media!

We’ve attached the entire text of the piece below. (Installment #2, on broadcast spectrum taxes to subsidize public media, will be released next week.)

The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part I: Taxes on Consumer Electronics, Mobile Phones & Broadband

by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka*

PFF Progress on Point 17.1 [PDF]

With many traditional media operators struggling, and questions being raised about how journalism in particular will be supported in the future,[1] Washington policymakers are currently considering what role government can and should play in helping media providers reinvent themselves in the face of tumultuous technological change wrought by the Digital Revolution. For example, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently kicked off a new “Future of Media” effort with a workshop on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era.” Likewise, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has hosted two workshops asking “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?”  Meanwhile, the Senate has already held hearings about “the future of journalism,” and Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) recently introduced the “Newspaper Revitalization Act,” which would allow newspapers to become tax-exempt non-profits in an effort to help them stay afloat.

In a series of forthcoming essays leading up to the May 7 filing deadline for the FCC’s “Future of Media” proceeding, we will discuss and critique some of the leading proposals being put forward that would have the government play a greater role in sustaining struggling media enterprises, “saving journalism,” or promoting more “public interest” content.

In this essay, we discuss an old idea that‘s gained new currency: taxing media  devices or distribution systems to fund media content. We argue that such media income redistribution is fundamentally inconsistent with American press traditions, highly problematic under the First Amendment, difficult to implement in a world of media abundance and platform convergence, and likely to cause serious negative side effects.

The BBC Model: Taxing Devices

Taxing devices to subsidize media content has never gained much traction here in the U.S., but it’s been used by some foreign governments for many decades.  Most famously, taxes on radios, eventually replaced by taxes on televisions, have sustained the BBC in the U.K. since its inception as the world’s first national broadcasting system in 1922. According to the most recent BBC annual report, the annual “fee” was raised to £142.50/year (currently $213.43) as of April 2009.  Failure to pay the fee is, of course, a crime and punished with stiff fines up to £1000 ($1497.75)—and radio emissions from unlicensed televisions can be detected by government vans that rove Britain’s streets looking for violators.  The revenue generated by the tax is then allocated among various BBC media products, with most of it going to the BBC 1 and BBC 2 television channels.

The U.S. has taken a different approach.  We’ve not embedded a tax in the cost of new media devices to pay for the content delivered over those devices.  (Of course, that’s at least partially because we’ve had a strong tradition of free markets in media ever since we revolted against the Brits and mercantilism, their system of state-directed economic planning!)  Generally speaking, private media operators have been expected to pay their own way in this country and not look to government for direct support.

America has had some indirect subsidies in the form of reduced postal rates for print media, as well as tax treatment for advertising.  And taxpayer dollars have been channeled to the CPB/PBS/NPR regime, of course.  But such public subsidy is small potatoes when compared to private media in the U.S.  For example, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s 2010 budget is just $400 million.[2] While many look to CPB to fund children’s programming (among its many other activities), its entire budget is no more than a quarter of the total amount of U.S. advertising revenue produced by children’s programming from food and beverages products alone: $1.6 billion in 2006 by the FTC’s most conservative estimates.[3] That comparison illustrates the vital importance of advertising to media,[4] but subscriptions, direct sales, and private patronage have also been major economic engines of media in United States.

But the idea of more direct government support for media (and journalism, in particular) has always been lurking out there.  There’s long been a small but vociferous crowd of academics and policymakers advocating huge increases in government spending on non-commercial or public media.  And some of them have even toyed with a tax on technology to cross-subsidize the media content that flows over those devices or networks.  Most recently, Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols, authors of the new book The Death and Life of American Journalism, have proposed a 4-part tax plan to raise money ($18-21 billion) for a massive $35 billion/year “public works” program for the press (with the remainder coming from other sources):[5]

• a 5% tax on consumer electronics (they estimate it would bring in $4 billion/year)
• a 3% tax on monthly ISP & cell phone bills (estimated $6 billion/year)
• a 2% sales tax on advertising (estimated $5 to $6 billion/year)
• a 7% tax on broadcasters (estimated $3-6 billion/year)

Similarly, Leonard Downie, Jr., Vice President at Large of The Washington Post, and Michael Schudson, a Professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, have advocated the creation of a “Fund for Local News” that “would make grants for advances in local news reporting and innovative ways to support it.”[6] The Fund would make grants to news organizations through “Local News Fund Councils” and would be financed by “fees paid by radio and television licensees, or proceeds from auctions of telecommunications spectrum, or new fees imposed on Internet service providers.”[7] (Note: Proposals to impose fees on radio and television licensees will be discussed in a subsequent installment of this PFF series.  But for purposes of this installment, we reference the Downie & Schudson plan because of its call for fees on ISPs as one method of financing media going forward.)

More Platforms, More Taxes

McChesney and Nichols don’t go into a lot of detail about their tax proposals, but the consumer electronics tax they favor appears to be based on the 1967 Carnegie Commission Report, which called for a 5% tax on all new television purchases—a variant on Britain’s annual licensing fee.  But instead of just taxing “televisions”—which would be very difficult in a world of technological convergence where consumers can “watch television” on any number of devices (PCs, mobile phones, portable gaming devices, portable media players, etc.)—they apparently want to tax all consumer electronic devices.  Thus, they seem to recognize the reality of convergence but their answer is to just tax everything!

The British themselves have struggled with technological change: In 1971, the radio fee first introduced in 1922 was abolished, and in 1972, so was the BBC’s radio monopoly, with commercial radio stations being allowed to compete with BBC Radio for the first time.  One might argue that abolishing the radio tax and relying on a single tax (on televisions) to fund the BBC’s television programming (67% of BBC spending) as well as BBC radio (17%) was simply more efficient—since most consumers had a television as well as a radio.  Indeed, actually implementing any media device tax in the U.S. could prove very difficult, since countering evasion would require imposing sales taxes on online retailers ranging from Amazon.com to TigerDirect.com to countless small operators who sell TVs, DVD players, cell phones, and a wide variety of other gadgets.  So much for the Internet sales tax moratorium!

But the evasion problem is a real one. The BBC estimates an 8.7% evasion rate, and it’s not clear how much more (or less) of a problem evasion might be when the tax is imposed at the point of sale (as McChesney and Nichols propose) rather than every year (as in Britain).  But clearly, the problem can’t be solved simply by trying to tax all consumer electronics:  The higher the tax rate, the more likely a black market will develop for discounted devices—with all the problems that generally come with black markets, such as funding organized crime. Whenever someone proposes a single-digit tax rate for anything, it’s worth remembering that the federal income tax started out at 1-7% back in 1913—and, well, we all know how that turned out!  (Top rates rose to 67-73% during World War I, fell again to the mid-20s under Coolidge, then jumped again to 63% by 1933 and didn’t fall below 50% till 1986!)  Maybe McChesney and Nichols realize how ugly black markets would get if tax rates on devices rise in the future—and perhaps that’s why they’re trying to spread the pain around by taxing broadband and wireless service, advertising and broadcasting, too.  But, as discussed next, that’s another problem with the plan.

Taxation’s Negative Disincentives

Taxes distort markets and human behavior.  Long ago, Chief Justice John Marshall taught us that “the power to tax is the power to destroy.”  As the late Clarence B. Carson noted in an article of the same name:

Any level of taxation will make some undertakings unprofitable or submarginal. In practice, any increase in taxes will drive some people out of business, prevent them from going into business, or make it difficult or impossible for them to sustain themselves by whatever they are doing.[8]

This helps us understand why raising taxes on mobile phones and broadband bills would be particularly foolish way of supporting media:  it will distort beneficial behavior by both providers and consumers of communications conduit.

The FCC just recently reported that cost is a major factor for many households who decide not to buy broadband service (even though it’s available).  Why, after the FCC spent 13 months producing a 376-page, Congressionally mandated National Broadband Report on ways to increase the utilization and affordability of broadband, would we want to do anything to boost broadband bills, even in the name of “saving journalism”?  Increased taxes on broadband bills might discourage some broadband providers from rolling out innovative new services as rapidly as planned.  And once the new service tax is passed along to consumers—as all business taxes inevitably are—they might be less likely to adopt broadband, or might even cancel existing service.  How would that benefit media and journalism?

The same goes for mobile phones. CTIA—The Wireless Association estimates that wireless users already pay an average 15% tax (local state and federal) on their cell phone bills.  Moreover, if there is one thing we can count on, it’s that taxes inevitably rise once they get on the books, whatever the intention of their initial architects.  That‘s especially true when the tax creates a new class of subsidy recipients who have a vested interest in keeping the scheme alive and growing. Thus, what starts out as 3-5% tax on phones, broadband, and consumer electronics, will likely grow to be much higher over time.  Pretty soon the FCC will look like the massively inefficient Department of Agriculture, doling out subsides to everybody and his brother who qualifies for media industry corporate welfare.

How Will the Government Spend Your Money?

But the more interesting question about such a media tax may be on the  payout side of the scheme.  Herein lies a fundamental difference between the BBC model and what McChesney and Nichols are proposing: The BBC fees have always been used to fund BBC content only, not for all media.  True, the BBC once held monopolies in radio and television, but those monopolies died long ago, and when they did, the British did not share fee revenue with the BBC’s competitors.  Instead, commercial radio and television in the UK have had to rely on subscription and advertising revenues, just as in the US.  Thus, the British model does not answer a profoundly difficult question: Even if we assume government could create a reasonably effective media tax collection regime, who would qualify for a cut of the money?

In an age of user-generated content and a wide variety of hybrid media products, it would seem that defining eligibility criteria for the subsidy might be significantly more challenging than it was in the past. Would blogs qualify?  What about live reporting via Twitter or photo-journalism via Flickr?  Who gets to decide what qualifies as news worth subsidizing, as opposed to mere opinions or aggregation?  Similarly, the “Fund for Local News” and “Local News Fund Councils” favored by Downie and Schudson would be doubly problematic.  They propose that, “The criteria for grants should be journalistic quality, local relevance, innovation in news reporting, and the capacity of the news organization, small or big, to carry out the reporting.”[9] But, again, who determines “journalistic quality” and “the capacity… to carry out the reporting” or even what constitutes “local” news?

Beyond such practical problems, determining eligibility raises profound First Amendment questions because, as the Supreme Court has held, “in the realm of private speech or expression, government regulation may not favor one speaker over another.”[10] The Court has also held that “Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system.”[11] Thus, the government may not pick preferred classes of speakers for subsidies, just as it may not single out disfavored classes for penalties.  For example, a state university may not selectively deny funding to a gay and lesbian students association, because, as the Eighth Circuit has held:

a public body that chooses to fund speech or expression must do so even-handedly, without discriminating among recipients on the basis of their ideology.  The University need not supply funds to student organizations; but once having decided to do so, it is bound by the First Amendment to act without regard to the content of the ideas being expressed.  This will mean, to use Holmes’s phrase, that the taxpayers will occasionally be obligated to support not only the thought of which they approve, but also the thought that they hate. That is one of the fundamental premises of American law.[12]

And there’s also a First Amendment-related concern here associated with the potentially—if subtly—coercive effects of subsidies on the independent editorial discretion of news-gatherers.  Downie and Schudson insist they “understand the complexity of establishing a workable grant selection system and the need for strict safeguards to shield news organizations from pressure or coercion from state councils or anyone in government.”^[13] Yet they hope political pressure can, somehow, be kept to a minimum.  Likewise, McChesney and Nichols largely dismiss such concerns about undue political influence on subsidized entities—even though they cite several examples of politicians attempting to use the purse strings to influence PBS and NPR funding over the past four decades![14]

Regardless, these scholars fail to account for the fact that, going forward, political pressure would likely grow in proportion to dependence of media entities upon such public subsidy and the overall amount of those subsidies.  After all, we’re talking about taxpayer funding for the press on an unprecedented scale here.  Moreover, the more visible these subsidies become—especially then the funding goes to highly controversial media content or outlets ( e.g., involving pornography, vulgarity, politics, religion, abortion, homosexuality)—the more likely the public and politicians are to clamor for rules on who gets what.  We’ve already seen a microcosm of that concern with National Endowment for the Arts funding for controversial art and culture in the past.  Now imagine media subsidies on the scale that McChesney and Nichols envision coupled with Downie and Schudson’s “Local News Fund Councils” sorting out competing claims and concerns.  Media funding will quickly become a political circus—and another front in the ongoing Culture Wars.

Here’s another concern: Will this scheme lead to more or less media competition?  It would be misguided to argue that such a tax system couldn’t fund some quality journalism and even entertainment.  After all, there’s some wonderful stuff on the BBC.  But without having run the numbers for all countries, there seems to be a correlation between the level of government investment in media and the overall number of media outlets at the public’s disposal.  When visiting Europe, one is struck by how even the largest European countries have so few choices compared to what we have here in the States, and that’s true across media (video, audio, print, online).  Could that be because government spending / investment in media has had a crowding-out effect on private media?  That possibility is at least worth considering as some look to broaden public support for media here in the U.S. Government simply doesn’t have a very good track record of creating innovative, competitive businesses and markets.

How the Death of Private, For-Profit Media Becomes a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Which leads to a final concern: There’s just a gut-level discomfort many of us would have with the idea of government imposing even more taxes on us to support industries or interests we might find distasteful or not deserving of corporate welfare.  It’s one thing to say that the government should play a role at the margin funneling some money into public broadcasting efforts via the CPB for limited purposes, but it’s quite another to suggest that this should be the new model upon which all media should rest.  That’s essentially what McChesney and Nichols propose in their book, on the grounds that “the old order is collapsing” and private media is dead.

Of course, it’s virtually a self-fulfilling prophecy that private media operators will fail if you impose a smorgasbord of new tax burdens on them and related devices and distribution channels—and then channel the money to “public media” competitors!  As will be discussed in a future installment in this series of essays, taxing advertising is particularly harmful because those taxes come straight out of the advertising revenues upon which most publishers depend for their lifeblood.

But raising prices of innovative consumer electronics like readers ( e.g., Amazon’s Kindle, Barnes & Noble’s Nook, Sony’s Reader or Apple’s iPad) and the wireless broadband services that connect them isn’t such a bright idea either at a time when traditional publishers are hoping that new media distribution and consumption technologies will also allow them to experiment with new business models (like selling subscriptions for magazines or newspapers tailored for these devices).  Unlike the British annual license fee, a tax imposed at the point of purchase would discourage users from buying new devices.  This, in turn would slow adoption of new technologies and retard innovation in a market that has seen consumers move increasingly towards replacing their old devices every few years, due to the constant increased in processing power and functionality made possible by Moore’s Law.

Taken together, these tax proposals are a sure-fire way to achieve McChesney’s true radical end: the destruction of private, commercial media and journalism.  Let’s not forget, after all, that McChesney has argued (during this interview with the Canadian-based “Socialist Project”) that “the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists,” and that, “unless you make significant changes in the media, it will be vastly more difficult to have a revolution.”[15] And in his book with Nichols, he concludes by noting that “We have responded in a time of crisis not with tinkering reforms but with revolution.”[16]

Indeed they have!  But such radicalism must be rejected if we hope to sustain a truly free press and uphold America’s proud tradition of keeping a high and tight wall of separation between Press and State.  Americans would do well remember to remember the (other) Golden Rule: “Whoever Has the Gold, Makes the Rules!”[17] The more control politicians have over funding media, the more control they will inevitably have over media itself.

Related PFF Publications

• Testimony at FCC’s Hearing on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era ,” Adam Thierer, March 2010.
• Public Option for Press Should Get the Red Pen, Adam Thierer, The Daily Caller, Jan. 2010.
• Chairman Leibowitz’s Disconnect on Privacy Regulation & the Future of News, Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, Progress Snapshot 6.1, Jan. 13, 2010.
• Socializing Media in Order to Save It, Adam Thierer, City Journal, March 2009.
• A Manifesto for Media Freedom , Adam Thierer & Brian Anderson, 2008.
• Media Ownership Proceedings, W. Kenneth Ferree, Testimony before the Federal Communications Commission, Nov. 3, 2009.
• Media Myths: Making Sense of the Debate over Media Ownership, Adam Thierer, June 2005.

[1] The Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism reports that: “The numbers for 2009 reveal just how urgent these questions are becoming. Newspapers, including online, saw ad revenue fall 26% during the year, which brings the total loss over the last three years to 43%. Local television ad revenue fell 22% in 2009, triple the decline the year before. Radio also was off 22%. Magazine ad revenue dropped 17%, network TV 8% (and news alone probably more). Online ad revenue over all fell about 5%, and revenue to news sites most likely also fared much worse. Only cable news among the commercial news sectors did not suffer declining revenue last year.” Pew Project For Excellence in Journalism, Introduction, The State of the News Media 2010, March 2010, www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/overview_intro.php.

[2] Corporation for Public Broadcasting, FY 2010 Operating Budget, www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/leadership/board/resolutions/090915_fy10OperatingBudget.pdf.

[3] See FTC’s 2008 report, Marketing Food to Children and Adolescents: A Review of Industry Expenditures, Activities, and Self-Regulation, at ES-1-2, www.ftc.gov/os/2008/07/P064504foodmktingreport.pdf.

[4] Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, The Hidden Benefactor: How Advertising Informs, Educates & Benefits Consumers, PFF Progress Snapshot 6.5, Feb. 2010, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2010/ps6.5-the-hidden-benefactor.html.

[5] Robert W. McChesney & John Nichols, The Death and Life of American Journalism (2010) at 210-11.

[6] Leonard Downie, Jr. & Michael Schudson, The Reconstruction of American Journalism, Columbia Journalism Review, Oct. 20, 2009, at 92, available at www.scribd.com/doc/21268382/Reconstruction-of-Journalism.

[7] Id.

[8] Clarence B. Carson, The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy, The Freeman, Vol. 26, No. 10, Oct. 1976, www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-power-to-tax-is-the-power-to-destroy.

[9] Downie & Schudson, supra note 6 at. 93.

[10] Rosenberger, 515 U.S. 819, 828 (1995).

[11] Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540, 544 (1983).

[12] Gay & Lesbian Students Assoc, 850 F.2d 361, 362 (8th Cir. 1988).

[13] Id.

[14] McChesney & Nichols, supra note 5 at 193-99.

[15] Socialist Project, Media Capitalism, the State and 21st Century Media Democracy Struggles: An Interview with Robert McChesney, The Bullet, Socialist Project, E-Bulletin No. 246, Aug. 9, 2009, www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/246.php.

[16] Id.

[17] The Big Apple, Golden Rule (“He Who Has the Gold Makes the Rules”), June 13, 2009,  www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/golden_rule_he_who_has_the_gold_makes_the_rules.

Wrong Way to Reinvent Media Part 1 – Media Taxes [Thierer & Szoka – PFF] http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

Can we steer people toward hard news — and get them to financially support it — through the use  of “news vouchers” or “public interest vouchers”? That’s the subject of this latest installment in my ongoing series on proposals to have the government play a greater role in the media sector in the name of sustaining struggling enterprises or “saving journalism.”

As I mentioned here previously, last week I testified at the FCC’s first “Future of Media” workshop on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era.” (@3:29 mark of video).  It was a great pleasure to testify alongside the all-star cast there that day, which included the always-provocative Jeff Jarvis of the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism.  He delivered some very entertaining remarks and vociferously pushed back against many of the ideas that others were suggesting about “saving journalism.” Jeff is a very optimistic guy–far more optimistic than me, in fact–about the prospect that new media and citizen journalism will help fill whatever void is left by the death of many traditional media operators and institutions. He had a lively exchange with Srinandan Kasi, Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of the Associated Press, that is worth watching (somewhere after the 5-hour mark on the video).

Nonetheless, Jarvis is a enough of a realist to know that it has always been difficult to find resources to fund hard news, which he creatively refers to as “broccoli journalism.”  This is what is keeping the FCC, the FTC (workshop today), and many media worrywarts up at night; the fear that as traditional financing mechanisms falter (advertising, classifieds, subscription revenues, etc) many traditional news-gathering efforts and institutions will disappear. Of course, while it is certainly true we are in the midst of a gut-wrenching media revolution with a great deal of creative destruction taking place, it is equally true that exciting new media business models and opportunities are developing. We shouldn’t over look that, as I argued here and here.

Anyway, a lot of different proposals are being put forth by scholars and policymakers to find new ways to finance news-gathering or “save journalism.” One of the ideas that has been gaining some steam as of late is the idea of crafting a “public interest voucher” or what Robert W. McChesney & John Nichols, authors of the new book The Death and Life of American Journalism, call a “Citizenship News Voucher.”  And McChesney discussed this idea in more detail when he spoke at today’s FTC event on saving journalism. The idea is fairly straightforward: Give every American a voucher (McChesney and Nichols propose $200) to donate money to the non-profit news entity of their choice. The assumption is that this would be an efficient and safe way of channeling money to “broccoli journalism” while avoiding the serious concerns that arise when government officials or agencies are the ones steering the subsidies. McChesney and Nichols go so far as to call the notion “a libertarian’s dream” since “people can support whatever political viewpoint they prefer or do nothing at all.”

Before I critique this notion, let me just reiterate that I am sympathetic to the concern here since I began my life with a journalism degree and I’m a true lover of broccoli journalism. I certainly eat my greens when it comes to news. I’m a National Public Radio supporter and have given $10 per month ($120 per year) to my local NPR affiliate for awhile now. That’s more than I spend on almost any other media product with the exception of my almost two-decade subscription to the Wall Street Journal. And I also subscribe to The Washington Post, National Geographic, and a number of other “broccoli journalism” products. (I gave up my Economist subscription several years ago, which was also quite pricey). I make this investment because I personally love hard news and believe these media entities offer the very best of it.

Nonetheless, the “news voucher” proposal has several problems and is going to fail once implemented anyway.

First, McChesney and Nichols want to sell this scheme as “a libertarian’s dream,” but that’s utter rubbish. I don’t know of any libertarian who dreams of sending more money to the federal government only to win back the right to spend it on “qualifying media entities.” And when they say that “people can support whatever political viewpoint they prefer or do nothing at all,” well, last time I checked people were already free to do whatever they want with their money when it comes to media products! Why do we need to send it to Washington first?

And analogies to educational vouchers don’t work because we long ago decided to treat education as a public good and force everyone to pay for it. Vouchers are only sensible when we absolutely have to force people to spend money on public goods; they help make government spending a tad bit more efficient. While McChesney and Nichols claim in their book that the time has come to treat media as such a public good, most people would not agree, since the private provision of media services has worked quite well for some time—being funded by a mix of advertising and subscription revenues for centuries. They claim that era is over but, as I’ll note below and in a future essay about their book, it is their policies that would end private media by taxing and regulating it to death.

Second, what exactly counts as a “qualifying media entity,” and who makes that call? Can just anybody draw support from this program if they claim to be a “media entity”?  Are we going to let people redeem their vouchers on The National Inquirer or People magazine?  How about The Onion?  Or how about blogs like this one! “This is a risk we are more than willing to take,” McChesney & Nichols say since they are “operating on a gut instinct that people will use their vouchers to fund serious media while reaching into their pockets to pay for copies of The National Inquirer at the supermarket checkout.” (p. 205) Of course, it’s always easier to take such risks when you are playing with other people’s money! But they are fools to believe this idea is going to change the face of journalism in any serious way. The majority of people will spend their vouchers on whatever media outlets and content they are currently consuming, which probably isn’t want McChesney & Nichols (or policymakers) would prefer.

This raises a third concern: How long will it be before government starts attaching more strings to the vouchers? To borrow a headline from The Wall Street Journal from earlier this week, how long will it be before the “Economic Policy ‘Nudge’ Gives Way to a Shove?” This “Nudge” notion is popular in DC these days with the Obama crew thanks to Cass Sunstein’s book of the same name (w/Richard Thaler). But, as I’ve said here before, such “nudging” is rife with elitism since some policymakers imagine they can steer the public’s tastes or behavior in more desirable directions through law. The problem is, some people just don’t much like being nudged by officials from afar and they’ll often take steps to evade it. In this context, there is simply no way to get people to consume what you want it in an age of abundance. I talked about this problem at length in my testimony to the FCC last week. You just can’t make people watch, listen, or read if they don’t want to. As Ellen P. Goodman of the Rutgers-Camden School of Law has noted: “Given the proliferation of consumer filtering and choice, these kinds of interventions are of questionable efficacy. Consumers equipped with digital selection and filtering tools are likely to avoid content they do not demand no matter what the regulatory efforts to force exposure.” Moreover, she rightly argues, “regulation cannot, in a liberal democracy, force viewers to consumer media products they do not think they want in the name of the public interest.” Amen, sister.

So, even though, in theory, the news voucher idea lets consumers figure out how to steer the funds, I sincerely doubt that most of those funds will go toward “broccoli journalism” and other civic-minded content. And once people start  redirecting taxpayer dollars to all sorts of silly stuff that the elites and policymakers don’t like, that’s when the nudge will become a shove and more interventions will follow in the form of “voucher guidance and compliance” hearings, rules, etc.  In essence, you can file this all under the “if you build it they will come” theory of public policy. But, in this case, it’s all wishful thinking because you simply can’t force people to spend money (or pay attention) to things they don’t want to.

There’s final problematic caveat to the McChesney-Nichols variant of the news voucher idea: They would disallow any copyright protection or advertising support for an entity who receives voucher funds. That’s an effort by the authors to steer even more media activity away from the commercial sphere and toward “the public option” for the press. Let’s not forget that McChesney has argued (during this interview the Canadian-based “Socialist Project”) that “the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists,” and that, “unless you make significant changes in the media, it will be vastly more difficult to have a revolution.”  So, it’s important to keep his true intentions in mind when he starts claiming to have found “a libertarian’s dream” of a solution to what ails America’s media sector. [For more details on his intentions, see my essay from last year, “Free Press, Robert McChesney & the “Struggle” for Media.”]

In the meantime, this particular libertarian would like to keep his money and spend it on media as he sees fit, thank you very much!

Adam says no, as have Sonia and Wayne. Adam and I have pointed out that the FTC might want to think twice about crippling advertising at a time when it’s needed more than ever—before rushing to the kind of media bailout called for by the neo-Marxists at Free Press. The Onion‘s team of leading commentators generally agrees, but points out an under-appreciated dimension of the debate.

http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/onn_embed/embedded_player.swf?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fcontent%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FDEATH_OF_NEWSPAPERS_ARTICLE_2_26.jpg&videoid=101088&title=How%20Will%20The%20End%20Of%20Print%20Journalism%20Affect%20Old%20Loons%20Who%20Hoard%20Newspapers%3F How Will The End Of Print Journalism Affect Old Loons Who Hoard Newspapers?

Clearly many groups contend there’s a “crisis” in journalism, even to the extent of advocating government support of news organizations, despite the dangers inherent in the concept of government-funded ideas and their impact on critique and dissent. 

Georgetown is hosting a conference today called “The Crisis In Journalism: What should Government Do,” (at which Adam Thierer is speaking), with the defining question, “How can government entities, particularly the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission, help to form a sustainable 21st century model for journalism in the United States?”

We actually resolved the question of “What Government Should Do,” We actually resolved the question of “What Government Should Do,” in a manner that influenced the entire world, with passage of the Bill of Rights and its First Amendment. The Constitution was ratified by nine states on June 21, 1788.  Georgetown, your conference host, was founded January 23, 1789.  As far as I can tell, Georgetown didn’t hold a “Crisis In Journalism” conference that week, even though there was little national media industry to speak of and thus much more of a prevailing crisis situation than today, when you stop and think of it. 

Then the Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791–and still no Georgetown conference. Amazingly, at the time, our ancestors thought it appropriate for the federal government to establish a First Amendment and step aside, even though there were no TVs or radios, or Internet and websites, iPods, or stories broken by Twitter.  There wasn’t even an FCC yet to ponder a “sustainable 19th century model for journalism in the United States.” 

Media at that time barely existed compared to what we have today. Yet there was no crisis.  Nor is there a crisis today.

What this feigned crisis signifies is, on the one hand, pure indulgence of a wealthy society struggling with “creative destruction” in media; and, on the other, the desire for more political control of information flows and public opinion rather than enshrinement of the only condition appropriate to a free society—the preservation of competing biases.  These are ultimately far more important than pretended objectivity in both the preservation of our liberties and in the creation of “information wealth.”  Too often, the class interest of intellectuals is statism (continue reading Schumpeter for details, I’m not doing it here);  and the journalism industry, far from alone among myriad economic endeavors, is highly vulnerable to those same collectivist impulses. 

Convincing the public and policymakers that media is in crisis is essential for progressives to maintain influence now: while progressives long since successfully established government agencies with broad political control over communications, today they find themselves desperate to maintain that slipping control in the era in which media abundance undermines those agencies’ very reason for being.

Outrageous and demeaning calls for public funding of journalism, public spaces, information commons, artificial “crises” and other such manipulative indulgences draw their energy from the flawed premise that capitalism and freedom are inimical to civil society and the diffusion of ideas, when they are instead the prerequisites.  America established a First Amendment precisely because government and political machinery can threaten these precious values. Competition in creation of goods and services creates tangible wealth; competition in creation of ideas (including scientific research, yet another notion to discuss later) ultimately does the same and enhances liberties. Government funding removes the element of competition, on purpose.

This crisis is phony, except obviously for the specific businesses that are being upended.  Media, information, journalism, whatever it gets called, can only be irreparably damaged by censorship, the only crisis to which journalism is ever vulnerable.  But it also counts as censorship if progressives control information or succeed in funding it politically and prevent proprietary business models in the content, reporting and infrastructure of the future.  A Bailout for the First Amendment is catastrophic policy, even if it’s advocates’ stated goals are merely to make us all enlightened (somewhat left-leaning?) citizens.

(Hat tip to my colleague Alex Nowrasteh for helping me find ratification dates.)

Ken Ferree, former chief of the FCC’s media bureau and PFF’s recently retired president (now Board member), has penned another devastatingly witty piece slamming the FCC’s recently announced inquiry into “the future of media and information needs of communities in a digital age” as something that,

should make the stomachs of civil libertarians everywhere queasy. Of course the Public Notice of the inquiry is dressed up in all of the usual public interest language. The Commission purports to be interested in protecting good journalism, promoting a diversity of information sources, and expanding the opportunities for a vibrant debate of public issues. We have no reason to doubt the sincerity of those representations, or of the FCC’s claim that it will consider First Amendment concerns first and foremost as the inquiry proceeds. The problem is that the very act of initiating such an inquiry will chill protected speech; government inquiry into what is and is not working in the area of news, information, and media is itself an affront to the First Amendment. And it is no answer that the Commission has embarked on this journey with beneficent motives, it has no power to derogate from the protections of the First Amendment in the name of what one group of bureaucrats may think are important government interests. Can there be any doubt but that any category of speakers that are even indirectly regulated by the FCC will be mindful of this new inquiry and will curb the nature of their conduct and communications in light of it? What great potential for mischief the FCC has spawned merely by initiating this little inquiry! Regulation by “raised eyebrow” has become a well-established tool for a number of federal agencies, including the FCC, but with this inquiry the Commission has taken the concept to a level heretofore unknown – this inquiry is regulation by penetrating leer.

The rest of the piece is well worth reading. But of course, the FCC will continue on their merry way anyway presuming neither their their complete lack of jurisdiction nor the First Amendment prevents them from “merely asking questions”—as with asked open-ended questions about things like cloud computing, online privacy (a slightly different matter) and online content controls that don’t come anywhere near the agency’s jurisdiction. Adam and I will be filing comments on the “Empowering Parents” inquiry questioning this “questioning.”

As if we needed another. Over at Overcoming Bias, Robin Hanson points out that mandating balance leads to worse reporting.

Deposuit potentes de sede, et exaltavit humiles; [The Lord] hath put down the mighty from their seats [of power] and raised up the lowly. – “Magnificat” The Internet continues to humble the mighty in journalism. We hear a lot about the humbling of news outlets like the New York Times, but little about the humbling of news-makers. While the media reformistas would have us believe that dark, shadowy forces control what we hear, see and read, the reality is that it’s becoming increasingly impossible for even the world’s largest companies to “manage” stories because we live in an age of true media abundance. There’s no better sign of this than the fact that Michael Arrington has declared, with good reason, the “news embargo” dead. In the days of media scarcity (which the reformistas like Andrew Keen want to re-create), press releases often declared a story to be “embargoed” until a specific day and time, allowing companies to shape the story by planting releases with the “right” journalists ahead of time. Such embargoes have been breaking down for some time, but now, with the explosion of media abundance, even Google no longer has “the clout to force press to stick to embargoes.” It’s not my favorite recording but this clip of Bach’s “Magnificat” (BWV 243) should sear into your brain the irrepressibility of the Internet as the greatest leveling force since the invention of the printing press. The two are not unrelated: Bach’s Lutheranism was made possible only by the ready availability of the printed word.

Google Trends for websites reveals all kinds of fascinating insights into the way technology is reshaping the world. Among them is the fact that the HuffingtonPost.com has matured from a scruffy group blog into a new media powerhouse to rival the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post:

Note that the convergence of these three sites has happened both because HuffPo has doubled its audience and because the audience for the WashingtonPost.com has shrunk by half.  While WSJ.com’s audience has returned to roughly its pre-election level, the decline of NYTimes.com suggests that the Internet really is splintering audiences and bringing the giants of news media like the “Gray Lady” down from their once unassailable heights:

Michael Anderson from Niemanlab.org reports:

In the two months since Ann Arbor became the nation’s newest no-newspaper town, there’s been lots of talk about its status as ground zero for the new ecosystem of Web-native niche outlets. But I wanted to know: In a business that’s always been oiled by routine — midnight press runs, 6 a.m. broadcasts, 11 a.m. news meetings, 6:30 deadlines — how will tomorrow’s hyperlocal news professionals structure their day? So, a few weeks after the Ann Arbor News folded, I spent a morning with its most established successor, the one-year-old, online-only Ann Arbor Chronicle, to get a sense for the future of the newsroom routine.

Anderson’s story paints a vivid picture of entrepreneurship in news delivery, at least on the editorial side of the operation. I’d love to hear more about the business side of the venture. How much revenue are these sites generating per view or per user? How can they increase revenue? Are they experimenting with selling their ad inventory through ad networks that offer personalized (“behaviorally targeted”) ads to increase revenue? What do they think of Google’s new micropayments venture?