Newspapers & democracy

Johann Hari and Polly Toynbee have both called for help for ailing newspapers. Some new research suggests they might have a point.
This paper (pdf) by Sam Schulhofer-Wohl and  Miguel Garrido studied the impact of the closure of the Cincinatti Post at the end of 2007. And they found that:

fewer candidates ran for municipal office in the suburbs most reliant on the Post, incumbents became more likely to win re-election, and voter turnout fell.

Which suggests that fewer newspapers mean a weaker democracy. So local newspapers can produce an unpriced positive externality, as they help promote healthy local politics. In this sense, there might indeed be a case for some kind of subsidy.
This isn’t conclusive. As the authors say, their results are statistically ill-defined. And they could only look at the short-term effects of a newspaper closure. It’s possible that, in the long-run, the adverse effects will fade as citizen journalism fills the void; maybe there‘s a case for subsidizing this too. And, of course, there are countless dangers that the subsidies will merely prop up worthless papers, or even further weaken democracy as journalists don’t bite the hand that feeds them.
Nevertheless, perhaps we shouldn’t write off the importance of the MSM so easily.

Comments

[sean]

Newspapers? you mean those paper things you put in the bottom of the cat litter?

[Bob B]

What of the continuing spate of so-called "freebie" newspapers?

When I last checked national press circulation figures a month or so back, the only daily to have have increased its circulation last year was the Financial Times, which is the most expensive of the daily papers, easily the most serious and the most widely respected internationally. Why else would President Obama grant the FT his first interview with the British press?

If there's a case for subsidising the press through hard times, surely there's an equally strong case for subsidising the loss-making TV channels with falling viewer numbers.

[Recusant]

"This isn’t conclusive."

It's not even tentative.

I know you are always looking for the counter-intuitive, but, sheesh, do you really think there is even the possibility that subsidising that fantasist Hari or the inmate Toynbee is a productive use of my money? Because that is what they are after; not support for the Tavistock Trumpet or Bicester Bugle.

[Luis Enrique]

Good investigative journalism is a public good (the publisher does not capture all the returns, but along stretch) and a very important check and stimulus to the democratic process, and the quality of institutions (courts, public services, bureaucracies etc.) If the newspapers cannot figure out a viable business model, I think this is a serious concern. I'm sympathetic to the idea of subsidizing public goods. The question is, how to avoid people like Toynbee capturing any such subsidies.

[nm]

Surely the newspapers are already effectivley subsidised through the huge amount of government placed advertising, which could just as easily be placed online at a fraction of the cost. Could the Guardian exist as an organisation without the massive amount paid over to it for the Society section public sector adverts? The same goes for all our local papers.

[dearieme]

They were doomed from the moment the Elf and Safety people forbad us to wrap our fish suppers in them.

[Will]

You should read these two articles linked to here Mr clever clever smartypants Stumbly Mumbly:

http://drinksoakedtrotsforwar.com/2009/03/26/journalismdemocracythat-sort-of-shit/

PS. Anyone who uses the acronym 'MSM' should be shot with shit as they are undeniably right-wing scum with a lobotomy which is even worse that the normal right-wing scum you attract to this here weblodge.

just saying like.

[Recusant]

Will, I'm not surprised that an old Stalinist like you would approve of a state subsidised media. He who pays the piper........

[Will]

"I'm not surprised that an old Stalinist like you" balh blah blah...

You see? this is the sort of cretin you attract Stumbly Mumbly gadgie.

This would normally embarrass someone with an intellect. Ergo -- you are thick as fuck along with the scum you attract.

[kirk]

you suggest that fewer newspapers mean weaker democracy. surely it is more logical to conclude that as people lost interest in politics, they stopped buying newspapers.

[Tag Heuer Watches]

And a lot of it reflects a switch from bank deposits to securities; foreigners “other investments” in the UK, http://www.watchgy.com/ mostly bank deposits, fell by £143.2bn in Q1. And of course there’s no guarantee such buying will continue.
http://www.watchgy.com/tag-heuer-c-24.html
http://www.watchgy.com/rolex-submariner-c-8.html

[Warren Hannon]

I do not believe that subsidies are the answer as newspaper management could come beholden to
the giver. They need to remain independent.
See my web site warrenhannonopinions and click
on "New Business Model requires new ways.