Archive for the ‘government funded’ Category

Feds ponder funding local news

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009

In what seems like a wicked twist of irony — after the CBC announced a shortfall and cut 800 jobs recently — the Canadian government is considering creating a $150-million fund to protect local television stations from going under, the Globe and Mail reports today.

The government has been reluctant to discuss a bailout for the sector. However, MPs have grown concerned in recent weeks that Canada’s broadcast regulator is not moving fast enough to address the prospect that some small stations could be shut down this year.

Discussions about creating a fund for local programming come after national networks CTV and Global indicated recently that they were willing to walk away from money-losing TV stations in small markets rather than absorb further losses.

The broadcasters, though, have been lobbying to charge cable and satellite companies subscription fees — an idea turned down by the CRTC over concerns the money wouldn’t help specifically local programming.

The conversation I don’t feel we’ve had in all of this is just how important is local news? How willing are we to turn what used to be a business into a government-supported venture? What kind of news promotes democracy, and does that have an effect on what we’re willing to fund?

Posted in government funded | No Comments »

CBC in trouble

Thursday, February 26th, 2009

There’s no reason the current perfect storm of media trouble shouldn’t hit the CBC. That said, the Ceeb’s situation is at once easier and more complex, with governments suddenly eager to pump money in to save businesses, but this particular government historically chilly to the public broadcaster.

And so, a Star story on the CBC’s quest for a federal loan to stem a $65-million advertising shortfall is chilling.

“It’s a perfect storm, the beginning of a death spiral,” the story quotes Ian Morrison, spokesperson for Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, a broadcast industry watchdog group, as saying.

It’ll be interesting to see whether the CBC weathers the downturn any differently than other organizations. Of course, one of the alternative business models we here at Working Title are examining is public funding. We interviewed Tom Watson, from Canadian Business Magazine, whose masters thesis focused on the question of a publicly funded newspaper. Here’s what he told us:

Simply put, Canadians are guaranteed a press press. But daily newspapers live and die by advertising. They have to limit reporting to white space generated by the market. To get advertisers, they must print what sells, which is why today’s papers have colour, larger text and a lot of feel-good or sensational stories designed to attract readers, not educate or edify them.

There is the CBC, which is supposed to do a better job at journalism than other stations thanks to public funding, but it isn’t free to do whatever it wants and newspapers can do a better job at reporting detail that TV spots.

My idea for a free press, which I’d argue is philosophically required to educate masses in a true representative democracy, is to set up a national paper, maybe just during election years, maybe all the time. It would be delivered free to all voters, maybe online. It would just cover news and public policy debate. Staff would be selected by lot from the ranks of the Canadian media with 5-plus years experience. They would serve fixed terms. Funding would be written in stone by a constitutional amendment, not subject to political goodwill or ads (although political party could be offered equal space to sell itself).

Interesting ideas, though we’ll have to wait to see how the CBC’s position at the mercy of a potentially unfriendly government purse works out.

Tags:
Posted in government funded | No Comments »

National endowment proposal needs better model for allocation

Friday, February 13th, 2009

The Guardian has an opinion piece from Yale professors Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres arguing for a national endowment for investigative journalism.

They rightly recognize, as we do, that it is not about saving newspapers but saving news. They argue that, rather than the options of charity subsidized reporting or public broadcasters, a national endowment should fund investigative projects.

There is a third way out. We urge democracies throughout the world to consider the creation of national endowments for journalism that are carefully designed to confront the impending collapse of investigative reporting.
[...]
Here is where our system of national endowments enters the argument. In contrast to current proposals, we do not rely on public or private do-gooders to dole out money to their favourite journalists. Each national endowment would subsidise investigations on a strict mathematical formula based on the number of citizens who actually read their reports on news sites.
– A national endowment for journalism guardian.co.uk 13 Feb 2009

There is weakness in the model of offering funding based on popular views. Attracting attention does not equal importance. Worthwhile investigations may cost more to conduct. And the value of invesitgative journalism is just from informing the public, but influencing public policy and keeping power in check.

And then, most obviously, there is only something to view after the investigation. So, in their model someone still has to put up the money and take the chance that the proceeds will get the hits.

There are weaknesses in the implementation that Ackerman and Ayres describe, but since there is public value in digging for news, there should be public funding for it. It is though, merely one of many solutions and part of the mix of answers for news in the future.

Posted in government funded | No Comments »