Structural Interventions

Historically, in the United States, for instance, policy interventions directed specifically at journalism have tended to be more structurally—rather than behaviorally—focused (Napoli, 2001). That is, given the constraints imposed by the First Amendment, policymakers have taken a somewhat indirect approach in their efforts to influence journalistic content. Policymakers frequently have operated under the controversial (and still widely contested) premise that certain changes in the structure (e.g., ownership type, competitive conditions, personnel makeup) of journalistic institutions would impact the nature of the journalism that is produced. So, for instance, policy efforts to enhance or maintain levels of diversity in the ownership of media outlets have been premised, in part, on the presumed positive impact such interventions will have on the diversity of perspectives that will be represented in the news and information produced by these outlets (Napoli, 1999).

A later structural policy intervention that has proven important in the history and evolution of U.S. journalism is the Newspaper Preservation Act, instituted by Congress in 1970. This act was a response to the fact that the number of cities with competing newspapers had been in decline dating as far back as 1909. In order to help preserve local newspaper competition, the act exempted newspapers from certain antitrust regulations, allowing local papers to combine printing, advertising, and distribution operations, while maintaining separate and independent editorial operations in those instances in which one of the papers appeared unlikely to remain financially viable (Humphrey, 1971).

In Europe, concerns about “newspaper mortality” in the 1960s and 1970s elicited a much more direct policy response, with many European governments initiating subsidy programs to newspapers in danger of failing, in an effort to preserve competition and diversity in the print news sector (Humphreys, 2015). The specific nature of these press subsidies varied from country to country, but they took hold during this period in countries such as France, Italy, Austria, Finland, Norway, and Sweden (Trappel, 2015). Sweden, for instance, initiated a press subsidy program in the early 1970s, directed at maintaining the presence of competing newspapers in Swedish communities. Financial support was directed specifically at “newspapers in a disadvantageous second position in their respective markets” (Ohlsson, 2014). Finland similarly began direct press subsidies in the early 1970s, though in Finland (where newspapers were tightly connected with political parties) the size of the subsidy for each paper was connected to parliamentary representation of the associated political party. These subsidy programs were motivated by a variety of concerns, including: (a) preserving linguistic or ethnic subcultures, (b) encouraging political discourse, (c) supporting the development of new media industries, and (d) alleviating newspaper mortality (Picard & Gronlund, 2003).

Such policy initiatives highlight the complex, controversial, and contestable interactions between fundamental policy principles such as diversity and competition that can arise within the context of journalism. Policy actions such as this also are particularly important in that they illustrate the way in which journalism can often be considered as fundamentally distinctive from other industries: there is a profound public interest in maintaining a diversity of providers that can extend beyond strictly economic concerns such as antitrust. This is a point that will resurface when considering contemporary exceptions that have been proposed for news outlets, such as certain tax exemptions.

Dissemination Interventions

From a dissemination standpoint, a number of countries introduced policies early on that were directed at enhancing the dissemination of journalism. Such policies reflect the public interest in journalism not only being produced but also being disseminated and consumed.

From this standpoint, it has been well documented, for instance, how the U.S. postal system was originally developed mainly to facilitate the efficient dissemination of newspapers throughout the country, at a time when a much greater proportion of the population lived in rural, rather than urban, regions (Kielbowicz, 1989). Essentially, then, a government-subsidized distribution system for journalism was a foundational element of the country’s structure. As one study has demonstrated, by 1794 newspapers made up 70% of post-office traffic by weight and exceeded 90% for much of the 19th century (Henkin, 2006). The extent to which a government subsidy for journalism was part of early U.S. postal policy can be seen in the fact that Congress was virtually unanimous in its decision to single out newspapers for postal subsidies that would allow newspapers to be shipped at prices well below actual costs. Many members of Congress in fact wanted all newspaper postage costs to be completely subsidized by the government. Ultimately, a complete subsidy was reserved for weekly newspapers within their home county (McChesney & Nichols, 2011). Such distribution subsidy policies were a foundational element of journalism policies in other countries, such as Finland and Sweden, as well.

Behavioral Interventions

There have been more direct, behavioral regulations directed at certain journalism sources as well, although these have become less common over time. Even a country such as the United States that tends to espouse a philosophy of government non-intervention in the activities of the press, exhibits scattered incidents of direct policy intervention into journalistic behavior. For instance, for a relatively brief period, broadcast television and radio outlets operated under a requirement to ascertain the news and information needs of their local communities under the premise that this information could then inform the local news programming provided to these communities (Foley, 1972). An even more direct policy intervention can be seen in the Fairness Doctrine. Instituted in the United States in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine required that broadcast news sources address controversial issues of public importance in a way that provided balanced coverage of the different perspectives on those issues. As such, the Fairness Doctrine is widely recognized as perhaps the most aggressive direct government intervention into journalistic behavior. Though it was upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 (Red Lion Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission, 1969), the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated by the Federal Communications Commission in 1988, in part on the grounds that it was having a “chilling effect”—discouraging rather than encouraging journalistic coverage of controversial issues (Ruane, 2011). Similar requirements do, however, persist in other countries. In the United Kingdom, for instance, there remains a due impartiality requirement, instituted in the 1950s, that continues to apply to broadcast journalism coverage of political and industrial matters (Fielden, 2011).

Because the Fairness Doctrine was never deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, it continues to cast a large shadow on U.S. policymaking related to journalism, with proponents making occasional attempts to revive it, while opponents of government intervention in the journalistic sphere raise the specter of the Fairness Doctrine in connection with nearly any proposed policy or inquiry related to journalism.

Preservation

The economic crisis affecting journalism in many countries around the world has produced a substantial amount of policy debate and a wide range of policy proposals (though relatively few new policy interventions) directed at maintaining the financial health of the journalism sector. Essentially, the continued viability of professional journalism has become a policy issue in its own right. Of course, to the extent that the integrity of a free press is premised in large part on its independence from government, the notion of policy interventions on behalf of preserving the press is inherently fraught with tensions regarding the appropriate relationship between the press and the state.

This has not, however, stopped some governments from taking direct action. France, for instance, has initiated some particularly novel efforts. As part of a proposed $780 million bailout package for the country’s newspaper industry, then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy called for all 18-year-olds to receive free, one-year, government-subsidized subscriptions to their preferred newspaper (Pickard, Stearns, & Aaron, 2009). What is particularly interesting about this proposal is its effort to not only address the short-term financial problems facing the newspaper industry but also to potentially cultivate youth engagement with newspapers in an effort to combat the industry’s longer-term problem—the fact that young people do not read newspapers. This policy ultimately was adopted in 2009, as part of what became a nearly $950 million bailout package that also included substantial increases in government advertising and increased distribution subsidies (Macnamara, 2010).

France is also one of the only countries in the world at this point to provide government support to online news operations. The country provides 20 million Euros annually to “online press services” (Nielsen & Linnebank, 2011). Thus far, policy interventions related to the press have been largely confined to the print and broadcast media, which raises the question of whether policymakers are employing a sufficiently contemporary conceptualization of “the press” in their efforts to preserve journalism.

In the United States, by the late 2000s Congress had “begun debating whether the financial problems in the newspaper industry pose a public policy issue that warrants federal action” (Kirchhoff, 2009). Consequently, both the Federal Communications Commission (Waldman, 2011) and the Federal Trade Commission (Liebowitz, 2009) initiated proceedings relating to the future of journalism and the economic challenges facing the business of journalism, and the U.S. Congress held hearings on the topic (U.S. Senate, 2009). Amid all of these discussions by policymakers about the continued viability of journalism, one consistent pattern was the relative absence of concrete policy actions to address the problem (Starr, 2012).

One action that did emerge from these policy discussions was the introduction in the U.S. Senate in 2009 of the Newspaper Revitalization Act. This act proposed granting non-profit status to newspapers under the U.S. tax code; categorizing newspapers with other types of designated non-profit entities such as religious, charitable, and educational organizations (newspapers would fit under the educational organization category under the criteria articulated in the act) (Nilakantan, 2010). Under the terms of the act, newspapers would still be able to earn advertising revenue; however, the space devoted to advertisements could not exceed the space devoted to news and information. Obviously, the Newspaper Revitalization Act recalls some of the motives underlying the institution of the Newspaper Preservation Act almost 40 years earlier. However, unlike the Newspaper Preservation Act, the Newspaper Revitalization Act has languished in Congress and has never become law.

Assessing the State of Journalism in Order to Inform Policymaking

A related issue that has accompanied the growing concerns in policy circles about the state of journalism has been the issue of journalism-related research and measurement. Effective policymaking related to journalism needs to be informed by comprehensive and up-to-date information about the state of journalism and the factors that appear to affect its health. However, as this discussion will illustrate, the notion of government-sponsored research examining the state of journalism and its performance can be controversial.

This was particularly well illustrated by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s efforts to assess the extent to which communities’ “critical information needs” were being met in the digital age. This effort had its origins in a report released by the Knight Commission (2009) that identified access to credible and relevant information as a key requisite for healthy communities. The report called for a systematic assessment of the quantity and quality of information available to communities. Motivated by the Knight Commission’s work, in 2011 the FCC issued a comprehensive overview of how community information needs are being met in the broadband era. Amongst the conclusions of the FCC’s report was a call (echoing the Knight Commission) for a thorough accounting of the journalism and information provided at the community level (Waldman, 2011).

In 2013, the FCC commissioned a study to address these concerns. However, the proposed research produced a firestorm of controversy, on the basis of concerns that the research represented government intrusion into newsrooms (Pai, 2014). Congressional hearings ensued, as well as threatened legislation to kill the research. On the basis of these critiques, the FCC first scaled back but then ultimately canceled the entire study (Flint, 2014).

This sequence of events is important from a journalism policy standpoint, given the extent to which it illustrates a long-standing tension between journalism research and journalism-related policymaking. Specifically, any government-initiated research into the state of journalism can be interpreted in and of itself as an inappropriate government intrusion into the autonomy of journalists, or as a “slippery slope” toward government regulation. Indeed, in the case of the FCC research, it was the element of the study involving interviews with journalists and editors about how news decisions are made that became the focal point of the controversy and the foundation of the rallying cry that ensued against government intrusion into the newsroom. Of course, the other side of the equation is this: how are policymakers expected to make effective policy on behalf of supporting and sustaining journalism without a comprehensive understanding of how contemporary journalism operates?

Diversity/Pluralism in Journalism

Media policies in many countries around the world are committed, to varying extents, to upholding values such as diversity (the term typically used in the United States) and pluralism (the term more commonly used in Europe and around the world). Within the context of media, these diversity/pluralism principles can take a variety of forms, ranging from concerns about minority/gender representation in media content and media ownership, to concerns about the range of content types/genres available to audiences, to (most relevant to this entry) the organizational characteristics, content outputs, and competitive dynamics of local and national news outlets. Policy concerns about diversity and pluralism in journalism are an outgrowth of the central assumption in democratic theory that an informed citizenry requires access to a diverse array of ideas and viewpoints from a diverse array of sources.

Concerns about diversity and pluralism in journalism have prompted a wide range of policy debates and initiatives. The focus here is on those issues that have resonated most prominently as in 21st century.

In the United States, media policy to encourage diversity in journalism has historically focused on broadcast ownership regulations, restricting large companies from owning a majority of outlets in any given market, on the assumption that a diversity of outlet owners translates into diversity of ideas and viewpoints within the context of journalistic outputs. This notion has often been contested, however, and the trend over the past three decades has been to relax ownership rules, especially since the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Because the Federal Communications Commission’s regulations are targeted at broadcasting, but not print or the Internet, existing rules that directly address diversity in journalism are limited.

U.S. policymakers have been grappling with the question of whether the low barriers to entry online (relative to print and broadcast electronic media), and the seemingly wide array of journalistic sources and content options that can be found there, obviate the need for continued vigilance in the regulation of ownership of traditional media. That is, does the Internet make concerns about journalistic diversity and pluralism in traditional media irrelevant? There are compelling arguments on both sides of this deceptively complicated issue.

In Europe, efforts to encourage and sustain content diversity have been of a more proactive variety, taking the form of subsidies to specific news outlets. As was noted above, in the 1960s and 1970s, several European governments enacted press subsidies to address a decline in the number of newspapers (known at the time as “newspaper mortality”) (Ots, 2009). Finland, Norway, and Sweden, as well as Austria, have generally been viewed as having set the standard for press subsidies (Fernandez Alonso, Moragas, Blasco Gil, & Almiron, 2006). An important feature of these countries that has direct bearing on state support of a diverse press is a long tradition of press corporatism, whereby each political party has a newspaper with which it is associated (Hallin & Mancini, 2004). Therefore smaller, less profitable papers have often had advocates within the government. France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain have also offered various forms of press subsidies; while Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom generally have not (though they have, as in the United Kingdom, supported the press in other ways, such as with tax exemptions).

Both Norway and Sweden offer direct subsidies to newspapers that are the “No. 2” newspapers in a market, to ensure the representation of multiple viewpoints within markets. Smaller papers also receive subsidies, though on a smaller scale. Finland’s model is based less on the newspaper’s position in its market and more on ensuring that every political party has a healthy affiliate newspaper (Humphreys, 2015). In Austria, all daily and weekly newspapers receive a subsidy as long as they fulfill certain requirements, such as publishing regularly and employing a minimum number of journalists. In addition, if a newspaper can show that more than 50 percent of its content is editorial, and it is not the top paper in its market, it receives another 500,000 EUR per year. Austria also provides monies for journalism training (to journalism schools), foreign correspondents, and research related to news and newspapers (Trappel, 2015). Clearly, then, several countries maintain an active program of press support.

However, since the financial crisis of 2008–2009, and the subsequent widespread economic strain, many countries—especially in Europe’s south—have been forced to cut press subsidies and have seen many newspapers shut down (Mesco & Schechner, 2013). The economic situation has also given renewed vigor to the criticisms of press subsidies, including that the subsidies have allowed for inefficient operations, have distorted the free market, and have prevented newspapers from fully embracing the digital transformation.

Policies encouraging pluralism have not been limited to the press nor to private, commercial ventures. As in the United States, nearly every country in Europe (and many beyond) has public service broadcasters that are funded in whole or in part by the government. Because the mandate of Public Service Media (PSM) is to serve the information needs and tastes of all audience members (Arriaza Ibarra, Nowak, & Kuhn, 2015), it holds an important place in ensuring pluralism in the news. For example, Sweden’s public media companies have specific language in their charters to defend democracy and human rights, to scrutinize public figures, and to ensure that the news is factual and impartial (Nord, 2015). The unique nature of these mandates is obvious when placed in the context of the market pressures on commercial news organizations.

Several countries have PSM regulations that relate specifically to journalistic content; for example, Italy requires public service broadcasters to grant equal airtime to competing political parties and forbids political advertising. In France, a 2009 presidential directive similarly forbids PSM from running advertisements, as doing so was deemed to be influencing the content in a direction similar to that of commercial outlets. In Poland, by contrast, a relatively young PSM system (established in the 1990s), relies heavily on advertising revenues (Nowak, 2014). In the United Kingdom, public service media are led by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which has a long history of political independence and reputation for journalism that upholds the value of pluralism.

Like press subsidies, PSM have come under fire in the 21st century as the economic situation in several countries has declined. The availability of journalism from several different points of view via satellite and the Internet has also fueled arguments for cutting back on government support for PSM. However, widespread support remains; certainly, in contrast to the relatively anemic and embattled public media sector in the United States, support for PSM in Europe remains strong (Benson & Powers, 2011).

Behavioral

In most democratic societies, policies or regulations directed at the behavior of news outlets are relatively rare, given that a free and unregulated press is widely regarded as one of the cornerstones of a well-functioning democracy. Nonetheless, policy issues related to the behavior of news outlets continue to arise.

One of the most significant behavioral journalism policy issues in the 21st century has revolved around the scandal that erupted in the United Kingdom in the summer of 2011, in the wake of revelations that the tabloid paper, News of the World, had been hacking the cell phones of celebrities, politicians, and other members of the public (over 800 victims in total). Within two weeks of the scandal breaking, The News of the World was closed down, but the scandal prompted a wide-ranging inquiry (the “Leveson Inquiry”) by policymakers into press behavior and ethics. The central question raised at the outset of this inquiry was: “Who guards the guards”? This question reflects a level of discontent with the systems of self-regulation around journalistic behavior that have become the norm in many democratic societies. These self-regulatory models are guided by the assumption that journalistic behavior should be unequivocally beyond the purview of government authority, given journalism’s central function as a source of checks and balances on government power (Freedman, 2012).

In the United Kingdom, for instance, oversight has long been provided by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), an industry self-regulatory body that can issue rulings but has no legal powers to enforce them. As Brock notes, “By 2011, the PCC was widely regarded not as a regulator but as a complaints mediation body” (Brock, 2012).

The Leveson Inquiry resulted in a nearly 2,000-page report, which concluded that the press had, on many occasions, disregarded its public responsibilities. The report recommended replacing the Press Complaints Commission with a new press standards organization, “backed by legislation to ensure its effectiveness,” but that would be “independent of both the press industry and government.” (Cohen-Almagor, 2014). This new body would have the authority to investigate breaches of conduct, levy fines, and form an arbitration system for those who believed they were victims of press intrusions. This organization would, in turn, be overseen by a “verifying” body that would assess its effectiveness every two to three years. And so, essentially, the behavioral dimension of the press would be migrating from a purely self-regulatory model to one in which government oversight would take a more direct and prominent role.

Ultimately, the Press Complaints Commission was shut down in 2014 and replaced by a new self-regulatory body, the Independent Press Standards Organization. The creation of a governmental regulatory body never materialized, which has led to heated debate and discussion over whether the necessary structural changes to prevent press misconduct such as what took place in the phone-hacking scandal have taken place and whether a legitimately free press can be preserved under the shadow of a governmental regulatory body.

The United Kingdom is not alone in grappling with these policy issues. In 2006, for instance, the Portuguese government created the Entidade Reguladora para a Comunicação Social (ERC), which among other things is charged with assuring that journalists respect personal rights and freedoms, as well as follow professional rules and codes of conduct (Sousa & Fidalgo, 2007). The ERC is a government regulatory agency with authority over both print and broadcast media, with part of its mandate also focused on promoting and stimulating mechanisms of industry self-regulation.

Journalism Intermediaries

With the coming of the digital age, the delivery of journalism to its audiences has changed drastically. In addition to access via print, television, news sites, and radio, audiences now find news via social media—such as Facebook and Twitter—and on aggregator platforms such as Google News. In 2015, 61% of U.S. adults ages 18 to 33 got their political news predominantly via social media (Pew Research Center, 2015). The centrality of social media to news consumption has only increased since then. The policies regulating the delivery of journalism, designed for the broadcast era, are just beginning to grapple with the implications of this major shift.

In Europe, both Facebook and Google have come under intense regulatory scrutiny in the 21st century. Complaints against Google were first filed with the European Commission in 2009, charging that Google used its de facto monopoly in Internet search to unfairly prioritize its own products and services (Powles, 2015). As observers have noted, Google’s business model is based on selling keywords to the highest bidder; when a user conducts a search on a given keyword, the hierarchy of results reflects the companies that won the bidding auction. Because the search service that Google provides is potentially an “essential facility, needed both by consumers and by firms that offer goods and services to them” (Clemons & Madhani, 2011), new regulatory structures will likely be needed. Other actions against Google include a 2011 suit filed by a French search engine and two civil suits brought by British firms—one a price comparison website and one a mapping service (Scott, 2015). At the time of this writing, both were pending the outcome of a decision by the European Commission.

Google’s dominance as an aggregator and search portal to the Internet affects journalism in several ways. First, and related to the antitrust concerns discussed above, is the possibility that a consumer may search for a news outlet or topic and be directed toward, for example, a private corporation’s website. Further, studies have suggested that a dominant search engine such as Google could influence election outcomes through manipulation of the order of material presented in search returns on political candidates. Though hypothetical, such activities could have profound implications for an informed public and a well-functioning democracy.

Second, and separate from the antitrust issue discussed above, there are copyright issues that result from aggregating news content produced by individual outlets. Aggregation in this context is defined as collecting and presenting third-party news content from traditional media and other websites, though the amount of content presented by aggregators varies (Davidson, 2012). Google News, for example, shows the headline and the lead of a news article, then it links to the originator of the content. The Associated Press in 2008 sued an aggregator called All Headline News, which was copying and reselling AP’s news articles in full. The case was settled in 2009, but only after a motion to dismiss was denied by the Southern District of New York (Park, 2010). Most contemporary aggregators follow practices closer to Google News, recognizing that the continued viability of journalism organizations is in their own interest as well.

However, countries including Belgium, Germany, and Spain have charged that copyright law is violated when an aggregator reproduces any amount of content from other news outlets on its aggregator websites. In 2010, the European Commission launched a formal investigation into Google’s practices in news aggregation and search, which was nearly settled but remained open after vociferous opposition to settlement was voiced by consumers, rival companies, and politicians (Hirst, 2014). Among them was Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, which argued that the uniqueness of news sites was being undermined by aggregation of content that transfers the front page to the Google home page (Thomson, 2014). Advertising revenue, consumer demographic data, and brand loyalty are lost when consumers read the news via aggregation websites. Google responded that news organizations get significantly higher amounts of traffic than they would without their aggregation service.

This latter argument seems to be borne out by the experience of Google News in Spain. In 2014, the Spanish government passed a law requiring all commercial news aggregators to pay news organizations a fee every time they link to their content—no matter how much or little is displayed. The Intellectual Property Law, also known as the “Google Tax,” was approved in February 2014 and went into effect on January 1, 2015. However in December 2014, before the law went into effect, Google closed its Google News Spain operation, stating that since it does not make any money on Google News, paying the news organizations would not be financially tenable. Many Spanish news organizations objected to the law, and several studies have found that Internet traffic to the country’s news organizations dropped between 6% and 15% (and more for smaller news organizations) (Mullin, 2015). While Germany passed a similar law in 2013, the effects were not as drastic because it allowed news organizations to opt out of collecting the fee—which many did.

Another type of intermediary that policymakers must now consider is social media. In 2015, social media giant Facebook (with, at the time, more than 1.4 billion users globally, 260 million of which are in Europe) announced that it would encourage major journalism organizations to publish “instant articles” directly to the Facebook platform, rather than linking back to the news outlets’ websites (Scott, 2015). Supporters of this move argue that it allows users to access the information more quickly and efficiently, while skeptics argue that it encourages journalists to focus on the types of stories—offbeat features, strong opinion, and human interest—that are simply “click bait,” while simultaneously giving Facebook more control over when and how news appears (Mirani, 2015).

The move has the potential to engender a version of the “net neutrality” debate, given that the algorithms used by Facebook to determine which posts people see on their personal news feeds are not available for public scrutiny; and most people are not even aware that content is being filtered (Madrigal, 2015). Given the relative newness of social media, regulatory policy, as yet, has little to say on the subject, though there is a growing academic discourse suggesting that policy interventions of some sort may be needed (Helberger, Konigslow, & van der Noll, 2015).

And finally, in the wake of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, additional concerns regarding the intersection of social media and journalism have come to the forefront of communications policy discourse. Specifically, concerns about the role of social media platforms in the distribution of “fake news” (the term itself has become something of a lightning rod for debate and controversy) have dominated academic and professional discourse in journalism; and have begun to generate attention and action from policymakers. In 2017, Germany adopted a policy in which social media platforms that fail to take down fake news postings in a timely manner will be subject to fines. In the United States, Congress held a series of hearings in November 2017 focused on the question of the role of social media—and Russia’s manipulation of social media—in the 2016 election. As of this writing, it remains to be seen what, if any, policy interventions emerge from these inquiries.