Failing to Save the Press: What Should Be Next?

Abstract

Liberal democracy cannot survive without a vibrant, free, and pluralist press. Indeed, in an increasingly “post-truth” age awash in social media disinformation, pumped up outrage, authoritarian populism, and influencer “bullshit,” we have as great a need as ever for politically independent newsrooms resolutely committed to professional norms of factual accuracy and fairness and to providing citizens with information and commentary vital to democratic governance.

Unlike the “cheap speech” that populates social media, such “public service journalism” is a highly resource-intensive enterprise. Newsrooms cannot engage in sustained evidence-based reporting without sufficient financial wherewithal and stability. However, the news industry’s economic foundations have collapsed in recent years. 

Lawmakers in leading democracies have expressed great concern over the news industry’s economic distress. They have concluded, with good reason, that nothing short of government intervention can stave off what one commentator has morosely labelled the news media’s looming “extinction-level event.” The key question is what forms of government intervention would be most effective in lending critical support to politically independent public service journalism.

In recent years, lawmakers in several countries have adopted, or considered adopting, an intellectual property approach to bringing the news industry desperately needed revenue. That approach aims to shore up news publishers’ ability to recover licensing income by enforcing intellectual property rights in original news content. In particular, lawmakers have targeted online search and social media platforms’ unlicensed display and distribution of news story headlines and extracts as a primary cause of news publishers’ woes. They have sought to obligate online platforms—principally Meta and Google—to negotiate with news publishers for licenses that would require that the platforms pay news publishers for displaying and distributing such news content.

Yet, as this Article highlights, bolstering news publishers’ intellectual property rights has proven to be a fatally ineffective means of underwriting public service journalism. Failed attempts include both the European Union’s press publishers right and the hybrid IP-competition law regimes, such as those enacted in Australia and Canada, that provide for mandatory arbitration before government regulators in the event news publishers and social media platforms cannot agree on terms.


In the wake of those failures to save the press, it is incumbent on democratic countries to subsidize public service journalism through a combination of general tax revenues and proceeds from targeted excise taxes, whether on digital advertising or digital platform income generally. Democratic countries should also impose on digital platforms must-carry obligations designed to enhance the prominence of news publisher content and channel reader traffic to news publisher websites. Such regulatory measures can provide sustenance for public service journalism as it adapts to meet the daunting challenges of news fatigue and an influencer-dominated media environment that undermines individuals’ willingness to turn to newsrooms’ fact-based, investigative reporting for information about matters of public import.

Keywords: public service journalism, news industry, European Union press publishers’ right, Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, Online News Act, News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code, Google, Meta, digital platforms, Fourth Estate, press, social media, social media influencers