LOGIN NOT A MEMBER? REGISTER

FOR PRESS CONTACT US  SUPPORT

The Maryland Public Policy Institute

• RESEARCH
• Criminal Justice
• Economic & Fiscal Policy
• Education
• Environment
• Gas Tax
• Government Transparency
• Health Care
• Transportation
• Welfare
• EXPERTS
• EVENTS
• MPPI PRESS
• ABOUT US
• POLICY BLOG

Newspapers' future?

Originally published in the Frederick News-Post

Government Transparency

by Marta Hummel Mossburg

OP-EDS

Ronald Reagan once said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

His words could not be more true than when applied to the Federal Trade Commission's decision to "help" the news business.

A new report from the FTC (www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-discussion.pdf) outlines ways the government could guarantee the news business survives its current economic struggles. It builds on the Newspaper Revitalization Act, Sen. Benjamin Cardin's 2009 proposal to allow newspapers to turn themselves into nonprofits like public broadcasting stations and ultimately accept government money.

Many papers are struggling across the country. My former employer, The Baltimore Examiner, closed in 2009. The tribulations of The (Baltimore) Sun's parent, the Tribune Co., are well-publicized, as are those of many other papers and news stations around the country as traditional business models fail amid a faltering economy and an inability to adapt to changing news consumption.

But just because certain businesses are faltering does not mean the government should save them, or that news is dying.

News serves a "public good" -- the premise behind Cardin's proposal and the FTC's decision to intervene in the marketplace with its report. On a basic level it gives people the information to navigate their daily lives: road and school closings, weather, classifieds and legal notices. More important for our republic, it allows citizens to make informed decisions about public officials and policy and hold government accountable.

The key ingredient for the latter task is independence. If the government funds an AmeriCorps of journalists, gives tax credits for every journalist hired or creates a fund for local news, all suggestions in the FTC report, who would guarantee it will not demand certain coverage?

I cannot count how many times I've requested information from a government press aide and been told that my story would be more relevant if I changed the premise of my questions. When the government does not sign your checks, you can dismiss his or her suggestions. But if that person's boss controls the paper's ability to hire or fire you, what do you do?

And in case anyone needs reminding, government broadcasters do not break news and never win ratings wars. If every news outlet became a ward of the government and the profit motive were removed from news gathering, competition would decrease as would eyeballs on stories and television -- the opposite outcome of that desired by the FTC.

Last, the idea that the government should bail out traditional news disregards the fact that new models are forming to fill in the gaps caused by layoffs at papers. In Maryland, MarylandReporter.com and CenterMaryland.org are two sites providing both original, daily news content in addition to aggregating stories from papers throughout the state.

And nonprofits around the country from many sides of the political spectrum are hiring reporters, breaking news and winning awards. The nonprofit investigative news organization ProPublica just won a Pulitzer Prize for its work detailing the struggles of a New Orleans hospital during Hurricane Katrina.

The FTC's proposals would make yet another industry a ward of the state at a time when the government needs to generate tax dollars, fix a problem the marketplace is already sorting out, and permanently injure the independence of the press. Saving a few jobs is not worth the cost.

Marta Mossburg is a senior fellow at the Maryland Public Policy Institute. mmossburg@mdpolicy.org