Government Funded "Journalism," the sequel
Using Covid as a cover for massive institutional change
Earlier this year, I wrote about a growing movement here in the U.S. toward state-run media, noting this was being accomplished via both a major expansion of public radio and “Covid relief” subsidies for massive news corporations. In that same piece, I also noted the main problems with that movement: when the government starts funding media outlets, those outlets suddenly become beholden to the government and are way less likely to hold it accountable for its actions.
Unfortunately, last week, I came across another story which seems to show that the movement to governmentalize our free press is still happening in full force.
On November 3, the American Press Institute newsletter cited two op-eds (this Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed piece and this one from Poynter), discussing a $1 billion chunk of the House’s Build Back Better Act, called the Local Journalism Sustainability Act. On the surface, it seems like nothing much; here’s the link and here’s the official Congress.gov summary (FYI, you can also read the entire bill as written under the “Text” tab at that same link):
This bill allows individual taxpayers a tax credit up to $250 in any taxable year for subscriptions to one or more local newspapers for the taxpayer's personal use.
It also allows a local news journalist employer a payroll credit for wages paid to local news journalists.
The bill allows certain small businesses a tax credit for amounts paid for advertising in a local newspaper or through a broadcast of a radio or television station serving a local community.
I like to think of the wording in this summary as a sort of sandwich; I’ve got no problems with each of the slices of bread (reimbursing taxpayers up to $250 per year for news subscriptions and giving small businesses tax credits for advertising in news outlets), but it’s the “meat” in the middle that’s concerning.
That line – “it would also allow a local news journalist employer a payroll credit for wages paid to local news journalists” – seems innocuous enough. But after a year-plus of reading this blog, you and I know by now that things which seem innocuous often aren’t. Turns out, according to our friends over at Poynter, that wording in the middle of the summary actually means that the Local Journalism Sustainability Act would in fact “pay half the salary of journalists up to $50,000 for the year after it passes and 30% for four years after that.”
Yes, you read that right.
If this Act stays in the Build Back Better Act, and if the Build Back Better Act passes both the House and Senate (and President Biden signs it into law), then - per Poynter - the U.S. government is going to actually start paying journalists’ salaries at non-state run news outlets across the country, like your local CBS, ABC or NBC affiliates. Or your local newspaper. Or maybe all of the above.
The Act was apparently originally included in the House Democrats’ draft of the $3.5 trillion “Build Back Better” spending bill as a “payroll tax credit,” then briefly removed from the bill but came roaring back just “days later,” on 11/4, says Poynter in this piece.
Like the “Covid relief subsidies” the government was trying to pass earlier this year, the Local Journalism Sustainability Act was allegedly developed in response to “advertising declines during the pandemic” (though, again, as noted in my March piece about state-run media, media outlets were suffering financially well before Covid came along).
Either way, the fascinating thing here is that this Act, if passed, would actually do even more harm to the journalism industry than I initially thought. Not only would it essentially make “journalists” beholden to the US government… Here’s how Poynter explains it:
its passage would be a precedent, breaking through the American tradition of First Amendment concerns that government and journalism enterprises should be kept entirely separate. (Subsidies for news are common elsewhere in the world).
First off, I don’t know about you, but it doesn’t make me feel any better knowing that “subsidies for news are common elsewhere in the world,” given how increasingly rare democracies and democratic republics are becoming globally.
More importantly, though, I’ve talked a lot in this blog about wording and how it affects readers’ perceptions of stories and situations (see my Words as Weapons post from February); the wording of this particular sentence is an excellent example of how words can be used to quietly plant ideas in readers’ minds:
By using the word “precedent,” the writer of this Poynter piece is working very hard to imply that the passage of this Act would be new, exciting and / or groundbreaking stuff.
By using the words “American tradition,” the writer of this piece is implying that the First Amendment is not an actual law, but instead a simple “tradition”
And by using the word “concerns” after “First Amendment,” the writer is trying to dilute or soften readers’ focus on the First Amendment itself (which, for the record, reads like this, per constitution.congress.gov: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances).
If you take all the extraneous words out of the sentence, though, it reads quite differently:
Its passage would be breaking the First Amendment … that government and journalism enterprises should be kept entirely separate.
Every time I read that, a chill runs down my spine. Because, when you remove the distracting extra words, that reporter is telling you the truth: if passed, the Local Journalism Sustainability Act would *literally* break the First Amendment; the press will technically no longer be free from the influence of government.
This new Act would instead, in a very sneaky and backhanded way, make virtually every news outlet in the nation a sort of NPR or PBS, subject eventually to the rules and regulations and whims of the government. (*for the record, I spent many of my formative years in journalism listening to NPR and working with PBS, but I am also very glad that we as a nation have other media options, too)
So, if someone wanted to quietly convert all sources of news and information into government propaganda outlets, a la Joseph Goebbels (whom I discussed in last week’s post), this would be a sure way to start doing it. This would be a way for that someone to *technically* say: ‘Everything’s fine! The Constitution still officially states that the press is free!’… while at the same time also leaving open the very real possibility that, if a media outlet chooses to write things about the government that the government doesn’t like, the government can very easily revoke that outlet’s funding.
Only time will tell if this provision stays put as Democrats and Republicans haggle out the details of “Build Back Better” in the Senate, but I’m sharing this information today so everyone is aware of what’s at stake here. It’s way more than roads and bridges and broadband and even climate change initiatives. It’s the very core of what makes this country so great and keeps our government accountable - the free press. The Fourth Estate.
BONUS CONTENT:
Remember how last week I looked into the origins of the term “the Big Lie?” After writing this week’s piece, I was curious as well about the origins of the term “Build Back Better,” so I did an online search to see what I could find.
One of the first things I found was this link to the official site of the UK government, which includes writings by UK Prime Minster Boris Johnson under the heading: Build Back Better: our plan for growth.
I also found multiple pieces arguing over whether President Biden stole the term from UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson or Johnson stole it from Biden. And I found several others noting that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau uses the slogan, too.
But eventually, I learned that none of those men was the author of that phrase. I learned instead that someone at the United Nations came up with it. Some outlets say the UN came up with the slogan when Japan was trying to rebuild after a deadly Tokyo earthquake in 2011. The U.N. itself talks about it extensively in an April 2020 piece published on its own webpage, describing suggested changes to a post-Covid-19 world:
As the world begins planning for a post-pandemic recovery, the United Nations is calling on Governments to seize the opportunity to “build back better” by creating more sustainable, resilient and inclusive societies.
“The current crisis is an unprecedented wake-up call,” said Secretary-General António Guterres in his International Mother Earth Day message. “We need to turn the recovery into a real opportunity to do things right for the future.”
The United Nations is devising a blueprint for a healthier planet and society that leaves no one behind. Actions are being taken across the United Nations system to ensure a more resilient future.
So, now that we know the likely origins of the phrase, maybe the bigger questions here are – why are all of these world leaders repeating what the U.N. says in lockstep? Doesn’t that seem odd given that we are all governed independent of one another? Are President Biden’s and Boris Johnson’s and Justin Trudeau’s speechwriters really that un-original? Or is there something bigger going on here that no one is actually saying out loud?
Plenty of articles and websites laugh off anyone who asks these questions as conspiracy theorists. But remember what our friend Saul Alinsky said in his book Rules for Radicals:
“
Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon
. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule.”
*Unless, I’d note, you are not remotely embarrassed by asking questions. And unless you keep on asking, through the laughter and ridicule, until you get a straight answer from the people who keep repeating these phrases.