Government Bailouts for Newspapers

In her final article before starting a job with the Pentagon, Los Angeles Times columnist, Rosa Brooks, suggests government bailout for newspapers as a solution to the failing journalism industry. Brooks writes that newspapers deserve bailouts just as much as any of the other numerous industries that received them. As she describes it:

"If we're willing to use taxpayer money to build roads, pay teachers and maintain a military; if we're willing to bail out banks and insurance companies and failing automakers, we should be willing to part with some public funds to keep journalism alive too."

Not everyone in the journalism industry is on board. Brooks' article is debated on the Testy Copy Editors messages boards. Many people who posted are concerned that if newspapers receive money for the government, it will influence what they write about. The role of the Fourth Estate in the United States has always been to police the government and it might interfere with that process.

However, according to Brooks, saving newspapers will strengthen newspaper's watchdog role. In the article she writes, that a "decimated, demoralized and under-resourced press corp" did not question the war in Iraq. Government funding will strengthen the media and keep politicians honest.

I don't know if government bailouts is the best solution to save newspapers. But, I do think it's good that people are discussing this problem and reminding people about the importance of journalism.

Should readers expect less from online news?

In the American Journalism Review article, The Quality-Control Quandary, the writer explores the challenges newspapers face now that they are increasing Web content but have to reduce the numbers of editors. Many online articles receive little or no editing before they are posted.

I know times are hard in the newspaper industry, but cutting back on accuracy is not a solution. I don't understand why articles online should be any less accurate than those in print. Readers don't understand the difference in the editing process between the two. And why should they? They should be able to trust that any information coming from the paper is accurate.

Aside from the ethics of the issues, legal repercussions should be enough to make the papers strive for accuracy everywhere. In the article, the editor of the Baltimore Sun, John E. McIntyre, says that editors protect papers from printing libelous work. Having a well-staffed group of editors is a lot cheaper than court costs and huge settlements from libel lawsuits.

So what should newspapers do? The article describes how some newspapers are putting more of an emphasis on reporters editing their own work and having them follow guidelines to reduce errors. However, I believe that neither of these practices will replace the eyes of a well-staffed group of editors.

Balance vs. Bias

Balance vs. bias in the media was the topic of discussion in this edition of the NPR show, Talk of the Nation. The program was fairly long so I'll give a very brief summary. Michel Martin, the host; Jeffrey Dvorkin, NPR ombudsman; Brent Cunningham, managing editor of the Columbia Journalism Review; and Jeff Jarvis, media executive and blogger at buzzmachine.com, discuss how balance is not just a left-wing, right-wing issue, but that there are multiple sides to every story. Listeners want news to reflect their bias - whatever it might be.

They also discussed the problems caused by attempting to be impartial. According to Dvorkin, listeners want journalists to draw conclusions for them. However, journalists are often wary about making these connections because they believe it will be considered bias.

Jarvis argues the best way to overcome this problem is by being transparent about your biases. According to Jarvis, just because a reporter openly says they are for or against the Iraq war does not mean they cannot be impartial. It merely lets the reader know the possible bias in what they are reading.

The part of the discussion about journalist not drawing conclusions is extremely relevant for editors. It is the editor’s job to help lead the writer and point out parts of the story they are missing. Even though it might be seen as bias, editors should push writers to make these connections. By ignore them, they are doing a disservice to the reader.