I anxiously await responses from originalists on these posts regarding the First Amendment speech and press clauses.

1. Does the "press" (=media?) have greater speech rights than individuals?

2. How should journalism and journalists be defined?

3. Does the "press" include the Internet? If so, who should be treated as journalists, and what would constitute journalism, on the Internet?

4. Can the government subsidize the "press" (presumably on some sort of equality basis) but not individuals who may not be regarded as journalists?

5. If the government can subsidize the "press," presumably it could at a later time withdraw such. Might this power be considered dormant regulation of the "press"?
 

I'm not convinced by the diagnosis nor impressed by the solution.

Diagnosis first. I'll separate out the problems of newspapers into two categories, financial and quality. I'll talk about the financial problems when I discuss the proposed solution.

The quality problem stems from the fact that journalists have stopped doing their job. Their job is not to report he said/she said politics or science, it's to report facts in a context which allows readers to draw legitimate conclusions. For years now, newspapers have mindlessly repeated government and other claims, even when those are spurious or outright false; the shameful behavior of the NYT in the run-up to the Iraq War is only the most prominent of examples too many to list. As long as this culture of "journalism" exists, newspapers will continue to decline.

A related problem has to do with quality of the reporters. The truth is, most reporters aren't very good. Most of us have had dealings with the press. The reporters can't get the basic facts right, much less the context (to be fair, a lot of the problem may be the editors or space constraints). If I want a serious discussion of a legal issue, I'll come here or go to Volokh. If I want to know about climate change, I'll go to Real Climate. This applies across the board -- people who can actually discuss the facts in an intelligent way are now available in places other than newspapers, and the papers haven't caught up.

Now let's talk about finances and the proposed solution. As I understand the claim, it is that newspapers have high debt service. I can't say I'm terribly sympathetic -- investors made bad decisions and I have no reason to care if they lose money.

The proposed solution suffers from multiple defects. First, reliance on government subsidies is particularly troubling when it comes to the press. The whole point of the press is to bite government. If that's the hand that feeds it, well... Second, hiring more reporters, by itself, won't solve the quality problems I mentioned above. Third, the historical example of postal subsidies doesn't take into account the technical changes wrought by the internet. Yes, we did subsidize newspapers (and books) in the past, and I understand that the subsidy proposed is not for postage or delivery. Still, the solution of hiring more reporters simply doesn't take account of the availability of better sources on line. It's rather an attempt to fight the internet, and that's a losing battle.
 

As to MF's comment, I'm not sure the quality of the press per se is the reason it is in decline.

In the 1790s and 1850s, the press tended to be quite partisan and slanted. Before Watergate, the press often accepted the gov't line, particularly when the "good guys" like that guy we'd like to have a drink with FDR was in control.

We should remember btw that we are talking about certain types of media here. After all, Talking Points Memo often does quality journalism that puts some in the "MSM" to shame.

The decline of hard copy newspapers and the like seems in large part a reflection of the myriad of alternatives.

And, changes in technology and culture, including "up to the minute" information that oftenis pretty shallow. (nothing much happens much of the time; likewise, I have loads of channels; often nothing much good is on)

T.V. and VCRs affected movie going too. Many read papers online. There are multimedia possibilities there. Ability to link to related matters. Updates. etc. Certain news sources simply will have a smaller base of consumers.

Quality does matter, as does things like antitrust laws etc., but other developments cannot be ignored. Even if the NYT etc. had better quality, speciality blogs etc. would eat into its coverage.

I'd also toss out that whatever the solution the hard copy press should focus on the customers who would still consume their material. This includes those traveling to work or those who read on weekends etc.
 

Joe, I basically agree with you. The quality of the press is just part of the explanation -- better quality might overcome some of the other problems.
 

BTW, the press clearly includes the Internet etc., and the government's policies on such resources (including net neutrality, providing hi fi resources etc.) have clear First Amendment implications.

There also was a recent controversy, the conclusion I'm not aware of, over changes in postal subsidies that some felt would negatively affect alternative news sources.

MF is probably correct in suggesting the limited nature of this, but it probably also is of some concern.
 

I can't agree with Mr. Field's contention that journalists have "stopped" doing their job. Is the suggestion that journalists investigated whether Japanese Americans on the west coast were really a threat, or whether the government should have been better prepared for Pearl Harbor? I don't think so.

But I agree that the quality of journalism is low. What has changed is (i) conservatives and Republicans have gotten just as good as FDR at manipulating the press, which is good or bad depending on the relative value one assigns to level playing fields versus left-wing outcomes, and (ii) there are much better alternatives, i.e., we don't need the press to gather, filter and supply the views of experts like Volokh and Balkin, or Tyler Cowen and Brad DeLong, because we have direct access.
 

I can't agree with almost any of this, but that might be because I'm too far inside the publishing industry. The real problem, as I see it, is the measurability of "profit" and "expense" in publishing, whether we're talking about newspapers or books. (Anyone who says that this week's Sunday Chicago Tribune is closer to the core of the First Amendment than is, say, Baldwin's Go Tell It on the Mountain wasn't been paying attention.)

There's a significant problem with expectations: That the only proper measure of an investment's expected value is the numbers in the account book. Leaving aside whether GAAP applies to publishing -- ha! -- one must remember that no aspect of the publishing industry has ever been as numerically profitable as virtually any other quasiindustrial endeavor. Apples, oranges, etc.