On August 22nd, Colorado Media Project and Press Forward Colorado, both left-leaning news associations, held a conference titled “Convening Philanthropy to Support Informed and Engaged Communities.” Translated to plainer language, they held a conference about how news organizations can get hold of a public subsidy.
Per Colorado College Journalism Professor (and Colorado Media Project researcher and beneficiary) Cory Hutchins’ rundown of one of the panel discussions, one idea bandied about was “… an opening salvo in what could be a major upcoming public policy push” for public funding of the media. Perhaps not surprisingly, the people involved in this panel discussion are exactly who you’d imagine for the kind of bold change which requires your tax dollars to implement. The facilitator, a paid advocate with a resume as long as my arm working for progressive causes, led a group of panelists from The Democracy Fund (a left of center public policy group), Rocky Mountain PBS, Colorado Ethnic Media Exchange (a news outlet catering to various ethnic and racial groups in Colorado), and others in a talk over what public funding attempts look like now, and what they could look like in the future.
Using public money to subsidize news media is not new, it’s not even recent. A 1792 law allowed for low rates on newspapers sent through the mail as well as free postage for newspapers among and between different publishers. Moving forward a couple centuries and moving closer to home, the Colorado Media Project itself has been flailing about journalism in crisis since at least 2019 with their report on local news as a “public good.”
The calls seem to have been intensifying of late, however. I am reading more and more about everything from tax credits for news outlets, tax credits to hire reporters, rules about where the government should put its public advertising dollars, direct payments (a la PBS and NPR), to exotic voucher programs like those being discussed in (of course) Seattle.
Picking winners and losers
Thus, an important distinction needs to be made when we talk about public money and media. Not all help is the same. Direct (or indirect) transfers of government money to a news outlet are a far cry from what I could broadly term as support via removing government impediments. Handing out public dollars is vastly different than the government not taxing in the first place (or just getting out of the way). Generally we’ve shown a willingness to do the latter. For example, the government doesn’t tax churches or charities–two other private entities just as reasonably considered fundamental to our Republic. The former, giving government money directly to a news organization, starts us down a path that we do not want to tread.
Think about it. For the government to give money to a news organization, a whole host of thorny issues would have to be thought through and fought over.
Before you could even decide on the money, you’d have to sort out who qualifies as a news outlet or a reporter. You’d also have to decide who makes those decisions. Would I qualify via my Substack newsletter? Would Complete Colorado, published by the libertarian-leaning Independence Institute, qualify? Or how about the Colorado Times Recorder, which openly acknowledges its coverage is delivered with a “progressive orientation?” Do you want some corporate news outlets (think the Denver Post and 9News) to be able to define who is “legitimate” media? Do you want ultra progressive Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser to form a committee to decide?
Having jumped that hurdle (and notice that I didn’t even touch on the fact that you cannot consider any outlet that gets government money truly independent–a whole op ed in and of itself), then what? Do you pay out according to subscribers? According to how racially diverse the staff is? How unique their perspectives are?
Do we really want more of this?
We could continue, but let’s put aside the host of questions with no good answers and short circuit to a more pragmatic consideration. Publicly-subsidized media has already been tried and it’s hardly what I’d call a success. PBS and NPR, with their local affiliates RMPBS and CPR, get money from the federal government (with local affiliates getting theirs via pass-throughs from the nationals). Why? Skipping some detail, the thinking was that the subsidy was needed to make sure that diverse voices and perspectives got an airing in the public square. If you haven’t done it in a while, go listen to or read the news on a public broadcasting outlet and tell me how well they’re doing at reflecting you. Their “community-oriented” programming and news are often anything but for some communities.
We need journalists and journalism. The more the better if you ask me. I’m in favor of having as many different journalistic outlets as possible, big and small, profitable and non, because I believe that this is the only true way for news consumers to get fully informed and skirt the bias inherent in any one outlet’s coverage. The tried-and-untrue progressive notion that handing this over to the government to manage is not the way we ought to do it. It is flat wrong to take from everyone and give to the media. There is simply no way to avoid the moral hazards and perverse incentives involved. Let us hope that this idea stays where it is now, in progressive bubble panel discussions.
As part of the research for this piece, I wrote to the Colorado Media Project and had a phone conversation with Director Melissa Davis. She took pains to tell me, and it’s fair to note, that the panel discussion previously mentioned was tossing out ideas and considerations, not discussing concrete policy ideas; no one at the panel brought forth actual policy. It’s also fair to note that, and I think we can take them at their word until we see different, that their goal is to foster the creation and continuation of local original journalism, especially in far flung rural areas.
This is where you come in. Do you share my concerns? Do you live in one of those far flung areas and want to put your two cents in? As with the Voter Voices Project, take them at their word that all they’re after right now is a coalition of diverse voices coming up with ideas. Be that diverse voice in a sea of progressives. Go to Colorado Media Project and sign up for updates. Watch for more on this public policy push and join the conversation.
Cory Gaines is a regular contributor to Complete Colorado. He lives in Sterling on Colorado’s Eastern Plains and also writes at the Colorado Accountability Project substack.
