Opinion: U.S. has subsidized news from the founding; it needs to be content-neutral, universal and future-friendly

The notion of government support for news media, especially newspapers, is anathema to many journalists and even some of their paymasters, but Steven Waldman of the Rebuild Local News Coalition reminds us that the federal government has subsidied newspapers since its inception.

Writing in Politico, Waldman gives some little-known details of how newspapers paid only token postage at first, then were free within a 30-mile radius or if sent to any other newspaper, to spur the circualtion of information and help the federal government function over a large land mass. He cites Alexis de Tocqueville writing in Democracy in America that early U.S. newspaper circulation was "astonishing" and the greatest in the world, Waldman notes.

Waldman quotes scholar Robert McChesney: “If the U.S. government subsidized journalism today at the same level of GDP that it did in the 1840s, the government would have to spend in the neighborhood of $30-$35 billion annually.” And Waldman makes this point: "Now, the Internet has made the cost of distribution almost zero — while local news creation has collapsed. Some 1,800 communities have no local news source and thousands more have ghost newspapers. By one study, only 17 percent of the articles in local newspapers are about local issues."

Waldman's piece coincided with reintroduction of the proposed Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, which may find traction harder to get in Congress than last year, but he notes that his coalition is working in several states on legislation to help local news publishers, and argues that "If modern policy makers want to follow the model of the founders they should focus not on the literal construct of the postal subsidy but rather its policy principles," to-wit:

Steven Waldman

"The policies were content neutral. The subsidy was based on distance traveled, not content. This meant that both parties benefited. It meant that sometimes scurrilous rags were helped; sometimes great local reporting benefited. Everyone tolerated the idea that some publications they disliked might survive because it also helped the ones they liked, and a vibrant free press as a whole. Second, it provided a near universal entitlement. Small and large, rural and urban, publications both benefited to some degree. Third, it was future friendly. It did not target only publications that existed before a certain date. If new newspapers arose, they got benefits, too. So it supported innovation and not just legacy players. Fourth, the strategy constituted a political compromise. Although the subsidies were content neutral, each policy did have biases. The low flat rate fee favored city newspapers; the exemption for circulation near the home office benefited smaller towns. So they did both, drawing broad political support. The payroll tax credit that passed the House of Representatives last year had a similar balance: It would have helped cover the costs of local reporters at both Fox and NPR affiliates."