A progressive take on how to fix papers

John Nichols has an in-depth take on the problem, with tentative ideas to help (which he doesn’t call a solution, smartly) offered up as well.

First, he notes that the Internet, bloggers, electronic media, etc., all still heavily depend on print journalism.

Second, he notes that sites like Talking Points Memo, Pro Publica, etc. are making a valiant effort, but are just drops in the bucket. Even worse, he says they may be just enough of tacticial-level successes to be strategic-level failures:

For all their merits and flaws, these fixes are mere triage strategies. They are not cures; in fact, if there is a risk in them, it is that they might briefly discourage the needed reshaping of ownership models that are destined to fail.

He then goes back pre-Internet, to pin the start of newspapers’ problem on the rise in corporate journalism.

I totally agree. As I’ve blogged before, corporate ownership, CEOs and boards of seven-day dailies, or groups thereof, soon became used to 30-percent profit margins. So used to it that they refused to relinquish the idea, held almost as if it were a divine right, long after it was ceasing to be realistic, at least not realistic without job-slashing.

Then, he starts moving toward suggested solutions:

The old corporate media system choked on its own excess. We should not seek to restore or re-create it. We have to move forward to a system that creates a journalism far superior to that of the recent past.

We can do exactly that--but only if we recognize and embrace the necessity of government intervention. Only government can implement policies and subsidies to provide an institutional framework for quality journalism.

But, doesn’t government subsidy mean government control?

No. Nichols notes that discounted postal rates, government printing contracts and other subsidies have been around since the birthing days of the American Republic. In fact, cheap postal rates for journals of opinion, and somewhat for non-daily newspapers (more on them in a minute) were killed earlier this decade by big, slick newsmagazines, which, (schadenfreude alert) are themselves now in advertising and circulation trouble.

Nichols also notes that free FCC licenses for valuable airwaves, etc., mean that much of our media isn’t independent of government support anyway.

From here, he continues his suggestions. After starting with free postal privileges for periodicals with little advertising, he lists other ideas. An interesting one, but one I totally reject, is a tax credit for the first $200 per year spent on daily newspapers.

And, as I e-mailed John, it’s that word in italics that sets me off on this issue.

Your $200 tax deduction for buying newspapers? I don’t want it restricted to dailies. Community weeklies, and alt-weeklies in bigger cities, as well as largely non-daily specialty publications, such as gay or other special interest, black or other ethnic group, foreign language, etc., shouldn’t be made to feel any more “second class” than they already are.

And, we may not be as bad off as seven-day dailies, but we’re not exactly flying

If you write further on this issue, I strongly urge you to rethink or amend this point.

Amended in that way, it’s great. Or with a codicil of $200 for dailies PLUS $50 for non-dailies.

Anyway, read the whole thing. It’s good, very good, overall.