News remains protected speech because it's different
Government funding of news misses some key points
Okay, let's review ...
For the past week, under the justification that The Portland Daily Sun is completing a year of publication, I've made the argument that the national narrative about newspapers' decline is mostly self-serving spin from corporate execs who over-spent building their empires.
Keyword: "mostly."
Evidence for my case in mounting, and even news stories are starting to note the differences between large urban papers and smaller, community serving papers. Most are noting that while circulation of print newspapers is down, overall readership is at all-time highs due to the Internet.
(It's a shame that only Google seems to have figured out how to make money from advertising on the web. That's because while we say it's "all about selling eyeballs," Google figured out that it's really about selling our personal browsing histories.)
And my monthly surveys of other free daily papers continues to bring good news. My fellow Daily Sun owners, who operate newspapers in several New Hampshire towns, are holding their own. The independent free dailies in Colorado and California actually had good years.
It's important to adjust the national narrative because efforts to "fix" newspapers could prolong the problems while seriously blocking innovation. Chief among these is the idea that government should directly subsidize journalism in general and newspapers in particular.
For those with casual knowledge of news media — really, then, nearly everyone — it's worth pointing out that newspapers are fundamentally different from broadcasters, especially those using the public airwaves (as opposed to cable).
News organizations broadcasting over public airwaves, radio and television, are licensed by the government. They have requirements tied to those licenses, including public service and other tasks. Newspapers are not only not licensed, they are very likely among the least regulated industries left in America.
We have protections beyond what even magazines have, and we have far fewer commercial restrictions than books or other publications. "News" is very likely the most protected form of American speech.
Government funding would threaten that longstanding independence. Oddly, one of the justifications for this radical shift is that news organizations have shifted their loyalty toward business because it pays the bills via advertising. Okay, I don't totally agree but if that's true it's still better than a shift toward government.
Private business may cheat us, force us to bail out a bunch of Wall Street losers and cheat us with credit card sleight of hand, but it doesn't issue guns and badges, launch wars, seize property and impose death penalties.
Those supporting public subsidies for journalism make the valid argument that it already happens. Of course, the public pays part of the costs for national public broadcasting. Usually, advocates note postal service price breaks and legal advertisements.
The latter refers to a tradition dating back to the founding fathers, which included some publishers, who established cheaper mail rates for delivery of news products. Requirements have evolved, but in effect the papers have to carry news and can't be just advertising.
As for "legal ads," those notices of divorce or bankruptcy or public meetings, the purpose is hardly to subsidize newspapers. The idea is that informed citizens might see those announcements and respond accordingly.
And all that is a far cry from direct subsidy to journalists. The one thing I can guarantee is that government funding for journalism will mostly go to those organizations and individuals that excel at getting money from bureaucracy — to which I say: YIKES!
Can we really trust the "watchdog" if it's getting nice huge bones tossed from those it guards against?
Bad, bad idea.
Even the longstanding practice of suspending monopoly laws should be nixed. The so-called "Joint Operating Agreements," so called because the guys who thought them up were stoned, let news organizations price-fix their way into maintaining monopolies. Remove that, and innovation and competition have a better chance.
This newspaper has come a long way in one year, and frankly some of that was luck combined with timing. This project is blessed with journalists and ad sales staff that are way, way beyond what you'd ever expect in year one, and even our circulation (the bane of startups) got handled by amazingly dedicated professionals.
Some days I think that might be because of the economy. We have a couple of refugees from the Portland Press Herald mess of the last few years, and certainly the labor pool has been recently expanded.
But some of it has to do with Portland. This is a creative city that embraces individuality, celebrates "smallness," and you have been amazingly accepting of a venture that flies in the face of conventional thought.
Still, launching a newspaper in this economy is like winning a Super Bowl ... celebrate for a week, then your fans make a demand: Repeat!
(Curtis Robinson is founding editor of The Portland Daily Sun.)
