The government pays for it... so what?

Alan Cai

July 5, 2024

A healthy modern population must have access to a reliable source of news reporting in order to maintain their general awareness and education. If keeping the public informed was essential for any developed nation, it should follow that given the financially strained nature of the industry (in which companies receive revenue from advertising revenue, television royalties, and subscriptions), should it follow that news organizations ought to be funded by the government?

No matter how underfunded the journalism industry becomes (as would be expected in the near future given the development of social media and the advent of artificial intelligence), the government must not intervene in its operations unless it pertains to a General Motors/Chrysler-style bailout to prevent bankruptcy. Even then, such an intervention should proceed with caution to ensure that bureaucratic oversight or influence doesn’t extend indefinitely. There are several reasons why the media is not an appropriate area for government overreach.

First, independent journalism is a cornerstone of a functional democracy. The First Amendment itself guarantees freedom of the press but the government funding news and thus hanging strings over their heads is a fundamental abridgement of such rights. Furthermore, it gives the beneficiary of government funding the upper hand when it comes to competing with its rivals; they are not affected by any economic pressures and therefore have the freedom to invest in costlier endeavors and take larger risks other news companies are afraid to try. Furthermore, state-backed newspapers can also afford to attract better journalists, resulting in superior quality and the ability to outcompete rivals. Over time, government funding can be weaponized not only to control certain news networks but also to push nonconforming or unaligned media groups out of the market.

Secondly, not all news organizations can be supported by government sponsorship because there are far too many news organizations. Thus, the government must either choose a select number of platforms to fund or set a viewership, revenue, or employment size benchmark above which funding will be provided. The former method is too subjective and will give too much leeway for the government to provide discretion. Therefore, the funding provided will likely mirror or at least be affected by the political landscape in Washington DC. Putting up objective boundaries to determine which news sources would be provided financial support is in itself counterintuitive because it allows organizations that are already well-off to widen the gap with their competitors. It would also give the media industry less of an ability to adapt to the rapidly changing landscape. Specifically, the prominent news outlets of today may not be the preferred sources in the future, but government revenue streams can not change to reflect such a pivot as quickly.

Finally, there may not be as much of a necessity to provide additional government funding to news organizations. News companies already make tens of billions per year (all companies combined) and having government tax revenue or other sources substitute or even partially supplement that is unnecessary and will undoubtedly increase the deficit. That said, state-backed media in developed countries already exist in the form of Voice of America and BBC (the latter actually has a slightly more complex and nuanced funding structure). However, government influence in the press mustn't extend beyond these bounds.