Way back last week (which seems like a lifetime ago in blog years), I promised that I would post a final diary in my series on media ownership consolidation (the first six diaries can be found here) that focused on how to move ownership regulations into the 21st century.
Well, after having my laptop screen blow up on me and taking a few days to enjoy the inauguration of President Obama (that's very gratifying to type), I'm back with the final entry.
Before I get to the meat of my policy prescriptions that I think can help grow the media that we need for the future, while assuring that every person has access to the technology that they need to make use of that media, I just want to add the same disclaimer that I added to my previous diary offering possible policy fixes for the media ownership mess. There are plenty of people much smarter than me who can propose other ideas that are probably better or more comprehensive. What I'm trying to do in this diary is provide some basic concepts and outlines as a starting point. I would appreciate your thoughts and ideas in the comments (and I got some good ones in the last post).
First of all, the development of digital technology and the proliferation of new media sources and the associated reduction in the importance of broadcast media and newspapers suggest to me that it would be unwise to simply pretend we can turn back the clock and impose the same kinds of ownership restrictions that were originally imposed under the very different technological and communicative regimes that existed in the 1970s. Rather, I believe it is time to accept the new reality that the Internet and other related technologies have created and to adopt new policies that will guide the creation of Internet resources that are widely accessible and actually useful in fostering the kinds of democracy-enhancing transactions between an independent and vibrant media and ordinary citizens at a local level.
Some media reform advocates have suggested that we can grow the potential of the Internet as a resource that could conceivably replace the old broadcast model by simply ensuring greater or near-universal access to broadband technology and that we can pay for the required infrastructure that would be necessary to make this a reality by simply levying a tax on the broadcasters who currently enjoy the massive public subsidy of free spectrum on which to transmit their signals. This proposal, while a step in the right direction, only gets it half right.
It is not enough to simply ensure that people can get on the Internet. It is also imperative that once they reach the Internet, they have readily available sources of local news and information that they can actually find and use.
For this reason, it seems that it might be more productive to use money from a tax on broadcaster’s licenses to actually fund independent new media news operations that are specifically focused on producing original reporting regarding their local communities that can begin to compete with older, more established media outlets on the local level.
While broadcasters may claim that this kind of tax on their licenses represents a hardship that they should not be forced to endure, broadcasters receive both free spectrum on which to broadcast and substantial benefits from must-carry regulations that require that cable companies and satellite providers carry their signals, which insulate them from non-local broadcast outlets that could otherwise compete for the audience in their market. However, as a preliminary matter, it would be important that these taxes collected on the broadcaster’s licenses be specifically earmarked for this program and shielded from the normal budgetary process to avoid a situation in which funding becomes a political football that can be increased or reduced based on the governing party’s sentiments about the program.
More specifically, the new Congress and President Obama should propose and pass legislation to provide either low-cost loans or grants to new, independent media organizations who are locally owned and who are willing to condition their receipt of this money on remaining independent and producing original news content that centers around the community in which they are located. This funding would provide the initial start-up capital that companies need to get off the ground, while removing some of the barriers to entry into the market that have made new, independent media companies that can actually compete with their behemoth counterparts so rare.
The requirement that the company receiving the money be locally owned or operated is essential given the studies that have shown that "locally owned [broadcast] stations produce significantly more local news," and since the government would only be placing restrictions on the content of those organizations that choose to accept the funds, the First Amendment concerns would be relatively negligible.
Additionally, in order to avoid any potential charges of improper government influence in the production of news, while also steering clear of any other possible First Amendment concerns, it would be necessary to create an independent, non-partisan body relatively insulated from political influence to administer the funds. This agency or private, non-profit corporation would then create a viewpoint-neutral set of criteria for granting the loans that is also attentive to funding proposed news organizations that are potentially viable in the long-term and would also be responsible for determining if a media organization is fulfilling its obligation to provide local news and is therefore eligible for any future funding.
It would then be up to the individual organizations that are funded through this program to make choices about how best to allocate their resources to grow their operations and compete with existing media sources. Because the barriers to entry are low for newer digital forms, money spent under the auspices of this program could be used directly to pay for the kind of newsgathering and content production that do require some resources and start-up capital that could otherwise be difficult to raise.
As the New York Times and others have reported, there is clearly a demand and desire for this kind of news organization in local communities that can fill the voids left by the cutbacks and closures that have reduced the roles that traditional media outlets play in a particular market. Indeed, the bipartisan, broad-based outpouring of opposition that occurred following the FCC’s proposed rollbacks of media concentration rules indicate that there is a very real hunger in local communities for media outlets that will service the public’s need for news and information.
Although locally focused news organizations have struggled to secure the funding needed to get off the ground and compete with more traditional media by growing their staffs and building awareness of their existence in their community, given the successful reporting of some national blogs like talkingpointsmemo.com and firedoglake.com (which have shown that internet-only new media organizations can produce high-quality, hard-hitting journalism that can compete with traditional outlets if they can secure enough revenue), it seems worthwhile to try and foster the growth of the next generation of local news outlets that can help fill the roles that their counterparts in print and broadcast used to perform.
And there is certainly historical precedent for this kind of program. While the idea of subsidizing news operations is relatively untested in the modern era, it should be noted that, during the late 1700s and early 1800s, the U.S. government actively supported and subsidized small press operations in order to help ensure widespread distribution of public information to the new country’s citizenry.
Because of the importance of providing for a diversity of voices that provide essential news and information about issues of public concern on the local level, it is folly to stand by and prevent the disappearance of local media simply because of a blind adherence to the claimed dictates of the "free" market. Rather, it is essential that the government become more involved in directly promoting outlets that can replace the voices that have been lost to consolidation over the last decades, and providing subsidies to local media organizations can be an important step in reinvigorating the marketplace of ideas within individual communities.
Finally, in order to make these new independent digital sources available to anyone who has the economic means to purchase some basic electronic equipment (which would make the Internet roughly as available as broadcast television or radio), it will be necessary to expand the currently circumscribed reach of broadband access. The election of Barack Obama as President and larger Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate may presage some progress in this area.
As a candidate, Obama promised to work towards achieving greater broadband penetration by improving the existing broadband infrastructure and creating more competitive markets to lower the price of access, reforming the Universal Service Fund so that it will support affordable broadband – especially for those un-served or underserved communities – and by making better use of the nation’s existing wireless spectrum. While all of these are just policy goals that need to be fleshed out into specific proposals, the fact that the incoming President is focused on the issue of broadband access seems to offer some promise that there are achievable goals that can be accomplished in the immediate future.
In addition to these new initiatives proposed by the new Democratic administration, wireless Internet access could also soon be expanded dramatically after the FCC unanimously approved a plan to allow a yet-to-be-developed class of mobile devices use the empty spectrum space between broadcast television channels. These devices could provide their users with the ability to browse the Internet without paying the normal service fees they would pay if they accessed the Internet via phone or cable providers. The new Internet connections would be broadcast via the highest-quality airwaves that have been opened up because the elimination of the need to provide buffers between TV channels that, in the past, protected against broadcast interference.
Once the infrastructure is put in place to connect these so-called "white spaces" to the Internet, citizens would be able to access the signals with the use of a special class of mobile devices, which high tech companies are currently in the process of developing. Since it is unclear how much this new technology might broaden high-speed access to the Internet, the FCC and Congress should monitor developments in this area and actively intervene if it becomes necessary to ensure that this new technology is available to as much of the population as possible.