Protecting a Vestige of Democracy

The media is, for all its flaws, one of the main watchdogs which keeps institutions, like the government and schools, in their place by giving the public the information they need to make informed decisions. Although the expansion of internet and television media has sullied the “ideal” of media and journalism, at its heart, media is still one of the vestiges of democracy. Journalists have the unique privilege of asking questions of people who make decisions and getting an inside look at how some decisions are made and how the public will be affected.

I find David Simon’s idea about making newspapers function as non-profits very interesting. During the 2009 senate and house committee meetings discussing the decline of quality journalism, the idea of government subsidies was often tossed around as a potential solution. However, I find Simon’s point very valid: we can’t let the government control the institution that is “controlling” them. Our newspapers are important to our democracy; they were used to spread rebellion during the Revolutionary War and are still important today.

The industry seems to have only deteriorated more since these talks in 2009. For example, I was thinking about Google News (which is a really great, succinct way of getting the most important stories). Google does not have to write any stories or pay any reporters. The website compiles other news stories from struggling papers and ranks them according to pertinence, all while collecting ad revenue. I think an interesting decision is created because on one hand, charging people for the use of internet materials can help cover costs of good reporting. However, sites like the Huffington Post are entirely web based news sources. So, when the New York Times charges for use of more than ten articles per month, where do people turn? Good journalism has to balance the need for revenue with the open, mostly free, information rich Internet. Newspapers will have to do more than just charge for their resources online, because people have options to go elsewhere. Thus, a more radical solution is called for.