My Crazy Idea for Fixing the MSM

[Drix]

Make a law that states news media companies/corporations can be tax free operations like churches if they adhere to the following stipulations.

1. News media outlet can have only interests in news. It cannot be a subdivision of a larger corporation or have non-news affiliations (you could not be a defense contractor and own a media outlet).

2. Monthly independent reviews of your news coverage from various sources (i.e. FAIR, Media Matters, Crew, etc.)would have to be featured prominently in your paper or broadcast.

3. News would have to be 90% public affairs content. Entertainment and sports ventures, etc. would not qualify.

I think this would be an excellent idea because it would encourage companies into news publishing for the profit motive but would also limit outside influence from those who would use newspapers, magazines, radio, tv, as a vehicle to promote business or political agendas. It also uses the carrot rather than the stick approach unlike the fairness doctrine. They would not be put into a position of having to serve two masters. And even right wingers couldn't credibly oppose making a private business tax free. It could be called the the Independent News Act or News Freedom Act or something similar. Being that the fourth estate is so essential to a well run democracy I see no reason why it should not enjoy the same tax free status/protection that organized religion receives.

[whathehell]

1. Sounds good to me...K & R

[obxhead]

2. 4. News channels/shows are only allowed to broadcast information, opinions

are not allowed.

I would completely eliminate sports and entertainment. There can be separate broadcasts for those altogether.

[Drix]

4. No problem with opinions

I think some opinion driven media would be fine. They would still be subject to independent review.

[obxhead]

14. I think it should just be a clear divide. News shows are news, opinion

shows are commentaries and are defined as such and broadcast under different show names etc.

[Drix]

18. That would not bother me.

It would be best to keep it simple. If a media outlet wanted to blur the line between news and opinion the independent review would catch it and call them on it. Tax exempt status and independent peer review would go hand in hand.

[Liberty Belle]

3. I like the first 2, but 90% is too high for point 3.

I am the editor and founder of a public interest nonprofit media outlet. The bottom line is we get a LOT more readers by providing not only the best news coverage in town on our website, but also the other general interest features that attract a broad spectrum of readers--such as restaurant reviews, event previews, and sports. We sign up readers at street fairs where they're out having fun, promising them they will find more fun events in our publication. Our most important work of course is our political coverage and investigative reports, but when we've tried pitching that to sign people up, most just walk on by.

A lot of conservatives now read our publication because they're first attracted by something other than politics, and over time nearly all stay on our list (we have a 95% retention rate) and I get many emails from people who say they appreciate our balanced coverage and they're learning a lot about issues. While I am a progressive, our nonprofit publication is not an apologist for the Dems - I have run stories critical of bad decisions by Dems and our editorial section is written by our readers---so we've had stuff from candidates in the Green and Libertarian parties, as well as Democratic and Republican officials, and the majority from ordinary readers of all stripes. Our readers appreciate our truthfulness, however the chips may fall.

Why can't a publisher be good at BOTH hard news coverage and other material? I'd put the threshhold around 50 or at most 60%. Even a traditional newspaper such as the NY Times has entire sections devoted to sports and entertainment, and would lose a lot of readers without that.

Even with your definition, what exactly is public interest? What's "entertainment?" If I publish news about activities in our region, which may include free health fairs and job fairs as well as, say, a carnival or concert, where do you draw the line? How about a sporting event such as Senior Olympics or Special Olympics? Isn't there a public interest component to that?

Even PBS has a lot of non-news coverage -- heavy emphasis on arts and music, children's programming, and so forth.

In my view, one of the biggest problems is failing to have enough coverage, or truthful and balanced coverage, of political issues.
I do think there should be a requirement that if you're a nonprofit and cover politics, you MUST cover all races for higher office in your circulation area and MUST cover all candidates on the ballot. Our biggest competitor, the San Diego Union-Tribune last election refused to cover the Democrat running against Darrell Issa at all, on grounds that since he's the richest man in Congress, nobody had a chance to beat him. The Democratic woman, Jeeni Criscenza, ran a serious race and campaigned hard but had no chance without any media exposure. Not surprisingly, this time around nobody could be recruited to run on the Dem ticket in that race, so Issa is running unopposed. We need requirements for NEWSPAPERS similar to what we have for broadcasters. Now if you want to call yourself something else, ie the CONSERVATIVE PRESS, fine. But if a publication is masquerading as a community newspaper, it shouldn't be able to refuse to cover a major party candidate in a Congressional race!

[Drix]

5. I have no experience in publishing.

I just threw out 90% because it sounded good. My concern is not to give away the store to massive sports networks and the likes of TMZ and National Enquirer. Also this would be for profit ventures. Any restrictions on non-public affairs content would be offset by their tax free status.

[malaise]

6. Reasonable but given the recent Supremes ruling

can't the corporations still now sponsor their own propaganda.

[Drix]

7. Yes they can. Yes they do. They always have.

It's called the MSM. But truly free press could call out the propaganda. My idea is not to reform that bad USSC decision but to give real journalism true independence and rock solid market share.

[malaise]

8. That will never happen with for profit

media. They will take money from any one anywhere.

[Drix]

10. Some will.

I would fully expect right wing media companies to exist. But they would also have to stomach a Media Matters review of their content in prime time. There would also invariably be at least some left leaning or truly objective media companies formed. Remember these would be exclusively news organizations. They could not operate as loss leaders of larger enterprises. Expertise in journalism would be the driving factor in creating profit.

[LLStarks]

9. Ack. More regulation? As long as we still have PBS and NPR, this is a bit extreme. nt

[Drix]

11. I disagree.

It is not more regulation. It would not affect any news organization as they exist now. Fox News, Rush, etc. can operate as they have always operated unfettered. It is simply a tax incentive for independent news media.

[Jackpine Radical]

12. PBS and NPR are hardly independent media, given their corporate sponsorship.

[Jackpine Radical]

13. The basic idea has a lot of merit, I think. However, some thoughts…

First, the natural source of profit in any such publishing venture would be commercial advertising, and once you open that door, you would seem to be inviting the potential for bias. Another problem would simply be to get sufficient politicians behind it to pass it. I really hate to be so cynical, but there just isn't much money to be had in backing this kind of legislation.

[Drix]

16. Independent review would keep the commercial advertising in check

Say a media company takes a lot of defense contractor advertising then under reports or falsely reports a scandal involving the defense contractor industry. Whoever is reviewing their coverage can call them on it in prime time or on their front own page. Their tax exempt status will be tied to peer review.

[Drix]

19. I would find it hard to believe that nobody would be interested in

a tax free for profit venture. This would be a boon for enterprising journalists on the left and the right.

[Jackpine Radical]

22. I certainly don't mean to discourage the idea.

It may need some fine-tuning, but I wish someone would try it. I would love to see it go nationwide or even worldwide online. I have long thought that a good way to finance something like this might be with a VERY small charge per hit, but something like this might also work with subscriptions, I guess.

[hfojvt]

15. while I like crazy ideas, I don't think TAXES are the problem

If the media in general is bleeding red ink (that is, they are losing money in a big way) then offering to eliminate their taxes does not really help. A company that does not make any money already does not pay taxes, except perhaps for state franchise taxes.

Okay, it is probably only newspapers that are bleeding the red ink. Maybe TV and radio news are still profitable.
Except this would apparently eliminate taxes for FOX news. And how is THAT cool?

[Drix]

17. This would not eliminate FOX News.

It would be completely voluntary. Besides FOX News would not even qualify because they have other interests such as films. The only companies that could qualify for tax exempt status are those whose only business interests is in public affairs news.

[KharmaTrain]

20. Never Have A Chance In A Court...

That pesky First Ammendment strikes again. Your first problem is defining what "news" is...and what's bona fide as opposed to manufactured. You really can't. And even so, telling a network they can only distribute a specific type of information or attempt to define what content is asks for a court case that will never stand muster.

The key is a better educated consumer...and allowing many voices access via our public airwaves (through repealing Telcom '96) and keeping the internet free and open.

[Jackpine Radical]

23. But you aren't forcing anything, and there are other instances of gov't "censorship"

in exchange for tax breaks. Nonprofits being limited in their political speech, for example. All you have to do to exercise your free speech is to give up tax-free status. The AMA did that many years ago so they could do advocacy work for docs.

[KharmaTrain]

24. Remeber, The SCOTUS Just Chimed In On This...

Corporates are individuals when it pertains to the First Ammendment. Non-Profits who get subsidies from the government or religious groups that use tax-empt status to raise money are different than a for-profit corporation that is being "punished" or discriminated against. There are already rulings that the FCC cannot dictate a station's format...all they can do is grant or revoke licenses. Thus attempting to dictate content can and would be viewed as a First Ammendment violation.

[Jackpine Radical]

25. I think though that since an incentive is being offered, the Gov't can lay down rules

for collecting the incentive. Like when Federal contractors have to meet certain employment guidelines (or they used to, anyway--racial hiring quotas, union wage scales, etc.; I'm not sure how much of that stuff survived 8 years of Bush). Nobody's making them accept tax-exempt status.

[Drix]

26. My plan does not dictate content.

It only has two stipulations.

1. Your sole business interest is public affairs journalism.

2. Peer review of content.

Your news outlet could be as right wing or as left wing as you want it. The content of your newspaper or broadcast would irrelevant. Just as long as it's public affairs news.

Government decides what is news all the time. Press passes for example.

[KharmaTrain]

28. Peer Review Of Content Says It All...

Still won't past Constitutional muster...as who would be those peers and who would decide? Broadcasters are still required to present a minimum amount of public service, but that isn't nor ever has been news. Then do you submit a script before broadcast so it fits into whatever guidelines are proposed? Slippery slope stuff into allowing someone or a group of people to pervert such as system...and, again, one that is in conflict with the First Ammendment.

We currently do have "peer review" of content...it's called ratings. If you have poor content and/or credibility, your peers will not buy your product. Again, the problem is we have a society of lazy consumers who accept a lot of the propaganda that is put out there and massive corporate control of communications that limits access.

[Drix]

29. I think you're misunderstanding.

The only rules would be be that your sole business interest is public affairs journalism and the content is peer reviewed. If you want to lie day in and day out that would be fine. Death panels, birther nonsense, anything goes. The people reviewing their content would have zero policing authority. They just have the right to publish or broadcast the reviews in their paper or on their radio/tv program. There would be no censorship what so ever.

[Drix]

30. There would be no restrictions on free speech.

Tax exempt status would be based on your publication or broadcast publishing/airing critical reviews and opposing opinions.

[Initech]

21. A better idea would be to get it out of Saudi control.

[Drix]

27. I would have no problem making this available to American citizens only.

A little red meat for the xenophobes.