I believe there are checks and balances included in the bill to prevent that from happening. And while this is not the best solution, community journalism will continue to deteriorate and with it the checks on local politicians.
I think it's well worth our while to pay attention to the activities (including whether our NY Senators and Assembly members co-sponsor a bill, and, later, vote on it if it reaches the floor).
-- Find policies on which you can agree, tell them *why* you favor those policies.
-- Get to know their staff. Be kind, but firm, and always act appropriately. As you end a conversation, leave behind, perhaps, a realization that you're knowledgeable, determined. Ideally, you represent others in the district. Always thank them for their time and professionalism.
That's a LOT. But start small. I am doing this with my two Albany reps, (and my Town Supervisor, and my Village Mayor). But, hey, I'm retired, and I want to leave the world a better place.
To be honest, I am conflicted about this. As a recovering journalist, I understand the need for a strong and independent media, especially one that focuses on local and community news. I just wish there was a better way to fund this than using taxpayer dollars. Will leave it at that.
There is something fishy about having government sponsored news, even partially sponsored. The Front Page serves as a model for how to disseminate news and opinions digitally without involving public funds. There are many other examples around our country. The transition away from hard copy is what troubles most readers. We can adapt.
I kind of know what you’re feeling about government sponsored news, because the desire to not bite the hand that feeds you can be a strong one. But it is also very good to have a source of news that is not curated according to our personal preferences. The almighty algorithms can make it so two people who live next door to each other get entirely different ideas of what is going on. There needs to be an absolute disconnect between receiving these tax breaks and what results from the reporting. I believe the law is written to be content neutral and is simply based on the number of jobs. But it bears watching!
Absolutely. I've written before, the first stages of losing our democracy will come when the government takes over the media and that can be through the private sector and people like Rupert Murdoch.
While the thoughts about The Front Page are appreciated, the reality is most people are still not will to pay for their news the same way they pay for cable TV or cell phones and WiFi. Until that happens, news outlets will continue to deteriorate.
At least for national newspapers, one promising sign of reader-supported news is The New York Times.
Starting around 2011, the NYT's share of subscriber revenue started to exceed that of advertising. (I'm assuming this includes both print and digital.) Since then, subscriber revenue has been growing steadily, and the share of subscriber revenue as part of total revenue has been increasing every year. For 2023, subscriber revenue comprised over 68 percent of the NYT's total revenue.
Of course, the NYT may be somewhat of an outlier in this regard. I'm not so sure the Washington Post or the Los Angles Times are doing as well.
I am pleased with this bill, and I wish there could be a national version. Corporate welfare? Well, yes, in a sense, but I would rather my tax dollars go to local journalism than oil companies and factory farms, for example. Ideally, we pay taxes so our elected officials can use them to do public good, and the founding fathers thought so highly of a free press that they enshrined the right to have it in the Constitution. I would like to know what guard rails there are to keep the press truly free even though they are getting these tax breaks, because what politicians give, they can take away. And newspapers will probably never make enough money to buy a congressman the way other industries do.
It is essential, in my opinion, that we have local papers. That said, local or national, the press must not only be independent, but appears to be so as well. How do we say a paper is truly independent if it must rely on the government to exist? I believe for a democracy and its people to remain free, it is crucial that we have a press and that it is truly independent.
Maybe we need to think about a free and independent press being so important to the nation that it is worth subsidizing, like fire and police protection, or roads and bridges. We shouldn’t worry that the police will check first to see what your politics are before they decide to investigate a crime. But without a free and independent press, the day could well come when they do. That is what happens in an authoritarian state, and the first thing authoritarians do is muzzle the press.
We definitely need a free and independent press, bit id the state pays for it is it truly independent? History does seem to show more often than not, that whoever controls the purse strings tends to control the narrative.
I agree, hence the need for really strong and clear guardrails to prevent it. I do not think our current national congressional cohort has what it takes to even attempt this, though. So what will happen first—a thoughtful, intelligent Congress, or the death of journalism as we know it? We live in interesting times, alas.
"Research demonstrates that a decline in local journalism leads to a decline in civic engagement, public health and safety, cost of government borrowing, a rise in extreme partisanship and mistrust, a risk to the survival of small local businesses and community organizations."
Consider also that the role of the free press is to uncover and expose lies and corruption, particularly in government. Add emphasis to the fact that a government of the people, by the people and for the people is dependent upon an informed populace capable of making the educated decisions necessary to good government.
Then consider how much that ability is impaired not only by the absence of honest and ethical journalism, but also by sources of information being purveyors of untruths and fear mongering, teachers being gagged and books being banned, and churchs being founts of hatred and hypocracy.
Some people seem concerned that news could be sponsored (that is, paid for) by sources other than the reader. Sources like public money, or the taxpayer, or the government. And, presumably, that the source of revenue would affect the objectivity of the reporting.
I'd just like to point out that news traditionally has always been paid for largely by sources other than the reader. In years past, newspapers derived the bulk of their revenue from advertisers — that is, local and national businesses. Even today, while advertising revenue has decreased, it still provides about half of newspapers' revenue.
I find it interesting that public money used to fund news outlets is a concern among some, but there's no concern about business sponsorship.
(What would Fox News be without the My Pillow guy and testosterone supplement funding? I mean, what can go wrong when the My Pillow guy is funding your news through advertising?)
Big advertisers could put pressure on newspaper publishers. Thankfully, in most cases that I know, there was enough money coming in that the wall between editorial and advertising remained intact. But that may be much more difficult now. One of the reasons local newspapers no longer run editorials is the fear of losing paying customers upset with an opinion. That is a real loss and one of the reaons The Front Page exists.
Journalism has always been influenced by moneyed interests. In modern times, there was more balance, but clearly there were points of view established and expressed by editorials and story selection.
Be careful what you wish for. What's to stop the far right or the far left from becoming "journalists" and being subsidized by taxpayers' naivety in an industry whose survival is based solely on the quality of it's product. NPR has more stations than any player in the national radio market and is the biggest money loser and only one subsidized with taxpayer money.
Obviously, if you are a “journalist” you shouldn’t qualify for subsidization. It could operate like science does. Any yahoo can come up with a theory, but if the experiment can’t be replicated and it doesn’t pass peer review, the theory dies a natural death. NPR is National Public Radio. To me that means by definition that it’s raison d’etre is not to make money, but to serve the public.
Howard Stern may occasionally comment on current events, but he is not a journalist.
Perhaps I should have explained my comment more clearly. Science works the way I said. Extrapolating that out to journalism—If an entity that tries to claim the payroll tax break is not engaged in journalism (meaning investigating and reporting facts and events) but in advancing conspiracy theories and propaganda, then peer review by actual journalists would show they are not to be trusted as news. For example, if all the other newspaper and TV reporters at an event reported there were about 100 people there, and then there was one that claimed there were 10,000 people, you could be safe in assuming they are not reporting facts. Therefore, no tax break for them! It is like when a scientist claims to have discovered a way to produce cold fusion, but when no one else can use their methods to do it, their theory is relegated to the dustbin.
NPR is National Public Radio. Public, it says it right there in the title. Their mission is not to make a profit, but to be a source of information and education for the public. They actually get only a fairly small percentage of their operating budget from the government, with the bulk of it coming from dues paid by member stations, listener fund drives, corporate sponsorship, etc. Saying it’s on life support is just not accurate. NPR is actually quite popular, I believe it has about 30 million regular listeners.
I believe there are checks and balances included in the bill to prevent that from happening. And while this is not the best solution, community journalism will continue to deteriorate and with it the checks on local politicians.
" I can not think of a single reason that justifies government using tax money to support what amounts to failing business models."
I apply this idea to those mega-corporations that pay zero, or near-zero, federal income taxes. See
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/03/13/companies-spend-more-executive-salaries-than-taxes/72941207007/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/apr/12/joe-biden/fact-checking-joe-biden-corporation-taxes/
And, given the billions of bucks involved, what should be done about it?
I think it's well worth our while to pay attention to the activities (including whether our NY Senators and Assembly members co-sponsor a bill, and, later, vote on it if it reaches the floor).
Among approaches I take:
-- Look over their NY Senate and Assembly web pages (example: https://www.nysenate.gov/senators/daniel-g-stec). Read through the bills they have prime-sponsored.
-- Look at their campaign web sites (ex.: https://www.stecforsenate.com).
-- Set up Google Alerts for them (see alerts.google.com).
-- Get to know their staff.
-- Find policies on which you can agree, tell them *why* you favor those policies.
-- Get to know their staff. Be kind, but firm, and always act appropriately. As you end a conversation, leave behind, perhaps, a realization that you're knowledgeable, determined. Ideally, you represent others in the district. Always thank them for their time and professionalism.
That's a LOT. But start small. I am doing this with my two Albany reps, (and my Town Supervisor, and my Village Mayor). But, hey, I'm retired, and I want to leave the world a better place.
To be honest, I am conflicted about this. As a recovering journalist, I understand the need for a strong and independent media, especially one that focuses on local and community news. I just wish there was a better way to fund this than using taxpayer dollars. Will leave it at that.
Yes. I know Pro Publica well.
There is something fishy about having government sponsored news, even partially sponsored. The Front Page serves as a model for how to disseminate news and opinions digitally without involving public funds. There are many other examples around our country. The transition away from hard copy is what troubles most readers. We can adapt.
I kind of know what you’re feeling about government sponsored news, because the desire to not bite the hand that feeds you can be a strong one. But it is also very good to have a source of news that is not curated according to our personal preferences. The almighty algorithms can make it so two people who live next door to each other get entirely different ideas of what is going on. There needs to be an absolute disconnect between receiving these tax breaks and what results from the reporting. I believe the law is written to be content neutral and is simply based on the number of jobs. But it bears watching!
Absolutely. I've written before, the first stages of losing our democracy will come when the government takes over the media and that can be through the private sector and people like Rupert Murdoch.
While the thoughts about The Front Page are appreciated, the reality is most people are still not will to pay for their news the same way they pay for cable TV or cell phones and WiFi. Until that happens, news outlets will continue to deteriorate.
At least for national newspapers, one promising sign of reader-supported news is The New York Times.
Starting around 2011, the NYT's share of subscriber revenue started to exceed that of advertising. (I'm assuming this includes both print and digital.) Since then, subscriber revenue has been growing steadily, and the share of subscriber revenue as part of total revenue has been increasing every year. For 2023, subscriber revenue comprised over 68 percent of the NYT's total revenue.
Of course, the NYT may be somewhat of an outlier in this regard. I'm not so sure the Washington Post or the Los Angles Times are doing as well.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/192911/revenue-of-the-new-york-times-company-by-source/
Now, that's an interesting bit of information. Thanks for the link!
I’d like to pay ….but offline.
I am pleased with this bill, and I wish there could be a national version. Corporate welfare? Well, yes, in a sense, but I would rather my tax dollars go to local journalism than oil companies and factory farms, for example. Ideally, we pay taxes so our elected officials can use them to do public good, and the founding fathers thought so highly of a free press that they enshrined the right to have it in the Constitution. I would like to know what guard rails there are to keep the press truly free even though they are getting these tax breaks, because what politicians give, they can take away. And newspapers will probably never make enough money to buy a congressman the way other industries do.
It is essential, in my opinion, that we have local papers. That said, local or national, the press must not only be independent, but appears to be so as well. How do we say a paper is truly independent if it must rely on the government to exist? I believe for a democracy and its people to remain free, it is crucial that we have a press and that it is truly independent.
Any guess how editorials will be influenced by the influx of "free" money. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Maybe we need to think about a free and independent press being so important to the nation that it is worth subsidizing, like fire and police protection, or roads and bridges. We shouldn’t worry that the police will check first to see what your politics are before they decide to investigate a crime. But without a free and independent press, the day could well come when they do. That is what happens in an authoritarian state, and the first thing authoritarians do is muzzle the press.
Very good post!
Thanks!
We definitely need a free and independent press, bit id the state pays for it is it truly independent? History does seem to show more often than not, that whoever controls the purse strings tends to control the narrative.
I agree, hence the need for really strong and clear guardrails to prevent it. I do not think our current national congressional cohort has what it takes to even attempt this, though. So what will happen first—a thoughtful, intelligent Congress, or the death of journalism as we know it? We live in interesting times, alas.
"Research demonstrates that a decline in local journalism leads to a decline in civic engagement, public health and safety, cost of government borrowing, a rise in extreme partisanship and mistrust, a risk to the survival of small local businesses and community organizations."
Consider also that the role of the free press is to uncover and expose lies and corruption, particularly in government. Add emphasis to the fact that a government of the people, by the people and for the people is dependent upon an informed populace capable of making the educated decisions necessary to good government.
Then consider how much that ability is impaired not only by the absence of honest and ethical journalism, but also by sources of information being purveyors of untruths and fear mongering, teachers being gagged and books being banned, and churchs being founts of hatred and hypocracy.
It is too much to trust to advertiser dollars.
Some people seem concerned that news could be sponsored (that is, paid for) by sources other than the reader. Sources like public money, or the taxpayer, or the government. And, presumably, that the source of revenue would affect the objectivity of the reporting.
I'd just like to point out that news traditionally has always been paid for largely by sources other than the reader. In years past, newspapers derived the bulk of their revenue from advertisers — that is, local and national businesses. Even today, while advertising revenue has decreased, it still provides about half of newspapers' revenue.
I find it interesting that public money used to fund news outlets is a concern among some, but there's no concern about business sponsorship.
(What would Fox News be without the My Pillow guy and testosterone supplement funding? I mean, what can go wrong when the My Pillow guy is funding your news through advertising?)
Big advertisers could put pressure on newspaper publishers. Thankfully, in most cases that I know, there was enough money coming in that the wall between editorial and advertising remained intact. But that may be much more difficult now. One of the reasons local newspapers no longer run editorials is the fear of losing paying customers upset with an opinion. That is a real loss and one of the reaons The Front Page exists.
Journalism has always been influenced by moneyed interests. In modern times, there was more balance, but clearly there were points of view established and expressed by editorials and story selection.
Be careful what you wish for. What's to stop the far right or the far left from becoming "journalists" and being subsidized by taxpayers' naivety in an industry whose survival is based solely on the quality of it's product. NPR has more stations than any player in the national radio market and is the biggest money loser and only one subsidized with taxpayer money.
Obviously, if you are a “journalist” you shouldn’t qualify for subsidization. It could operate like science does. Any yahoo can come up with a theory, but if the experiment can’t be replicated and it doesn’t pass peer review, the theory dies a natural death. NPR is National Public Radio. To me that means by definition that it’s raison d’etre is not to make money, but to serve the public.
Is Howard Stern a Journalist or Radio Personality? If "the theory dies a natural death" then why is NPR on taxpayer life support ?
Howard Stern may occasionally comment on current events, but he is not a journalist.
Perhaps I should have explained my comment more clearly. Science works the way I said. Extrapolating that out to journalism—If an entity that tries to claim the payroll tax break is not engaged in journalism (meaning investigating and reporting facts and events) but in advancing conspiracy theories and propaganda, then peer review by actual journalists would show they are not to be trusted as news. For example, if all the other newspaper and TV reporters at an event reported there were about 100 people there, and then there was one that claimed there were 10,000 people, you could be safe in assuming they are not reporting facts. Therefore, no tax break for them! It is like when a scientist claims to have discovered a way to produce cold fusion, but when no one else can use their methods to do it, their theory is relegated to the dustbin.
NPR is National Public Radio. Public, it says it right there in the title. Their mission is not to make a profit, but to be a source of information and education for the public. They actually get only a fairly small percentage of their operating budget from the government, with the bulk of it coming from dues paid by member stations, listener fund drives, corporate sponsorship, etc. Saying it’s on life support is just not accurate. NPR is actually quite popular, I believe it has about 30 million regular listeners.
👍
I am glad a politician has taken notice.
Elated to hear this! Bravo to those two legislators!!!
So hard working taxpayers will be on the hook for the self-inflicted wounds of a dying industry?