That’s what’s being proposed by Democratic senator Benjamin L Cardin, of Maryland. He outlines his “plan to Save our Free Press” in this article in the Washington Post. He proposed in Congress a Newspaper Revitalization Bill, which would allow newspapers to become nonprofits under 501(c)(3) status for educational purposes, similar to public broadcasting, in order to survive. It’s targeted at local newspapers serving communities and not big media conglomerates. The idea is the newspapers can then function as they normally do, with the exception of not being able to endorse political candidates. The plan sets up an alternative business model that newspapers can sign onto if they choose and will not be set up through force.

His article is interesting and makes some good points, but it realllyyy concerns me that he’s pretty much looking at all the newspapers that are dying and not seeing the ones that are adjusting to the new way of things online. There has been so much adaptation to the new way of things, and even though the websites may not be pulling as much money in as the print papers did back in the ‘good ol’ days’, they’re working out their problems on their own. It’s not like the actual freedom of the press is endangered here - the technology is just evolving and adapting to the needs of the people today.

Is the Senator’s plan a good idea? I don’t know, but my gut reaction is “NO.” For a press to be truly independent, as per our First Amendment rights, it needs to be free from government interference. Say what you like about how the government would just fund the newspapers and they would have nothing to do with content- I don’t believe it. Any article written that could be perceived to have the slightest slant in either direction would come under huge fire as a government-supported slander machine. Would opinion writers even be able to express their views on political issues under this system? The newspapers would survive, yes, but they would be crippled by their inability to attack certain issues without biting the hand that feeds them. Plus it would remove the need for the industry to push to innovate and adapt.

On the other hand though, the local newspapers often really don’t have the money to adapt to new things and change- and in certain communities, a void could open up in which no local reporting was being done. That’s the only real argument I see in support of this, but personally, I think citizen journalists and bloggers would fill that void as they have in years past.

Something Senator Cardin said really makes a good point, “While the economy has caused an immediate problem, the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken.” Yes. It is. The business model was broken before the economic crisis ever began. People have been talking about the dying newspaper industry for the past 5, 6 years at least. The industry is already finding ways to fix itself, or for the ones that don’t survive, disappear off the map. It is worrying and depressing but I still think the purpose and goals of newspapers from the last century will continue through this century in the switch to online and multimedia. Why should the government hold back the industry’s own ideas, creativity, and adaptation by providing a way for a failed business model to continue?

What do y’all think?

Other views on the bill- Fox News has an article up looking at those who support and decry the proposed legislation. Alan D Mutter at Reflections of a Newsosaur points out that the St. Petersburg Times and the Christian Science Monitor are both owned by non-profits, but are still struggling to make ends meet- he also points out a number of other examples that undermine the merits of the proposed legislation. (He also has a great old post on how this is the “Best and Worst Time for Journalism”- there are some great arguments going on in the comments on this post on what makes a “Real” Journalist and whether journalists should be licensed.) An article by John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney published in the Seattle Times, doesn’t directly pertain to this legislation, but takes a really fascinating in-depth look at what caused newspapers to fail, what the problems are now in the institution of journalism, and offers several ideas on how the government can fix them, including tax credits, subscription subsidies. Even if I don’t agree with all their conclusions, it’s damn good writing and logic that points out some very good examples of countries who spend tons of public money on funding newspapers.

In other journalistic legislation news, the American Chronicle writes about the proposed Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act, which would establish an annual State Department report on the status of press freedom everywhere in the world and create a program strengthening the independence of reporters and media organizations.

Now, as much as I like this idea, I have a few big critiques.

1. You shouldn’t try to take advantage of the tragic and very public death of a journalist to gain support for your legislation. Try to get the legislation to pass on its own merits first and then you can name the department after him if you so choose.

2. There are a number of organizations out there that already do this exact thing- The World Press Freedom Committee, Freedom House’s freedom of the press report and Reporters sans frontieres’ annual press freedom ranking (interestingly enough, the United States is ranked 31 for its press freedom in its territory, but 135th in its press freedom regarding behavior beyond its borders, Israel is divided into two categories similarly)

3. Does the government reallyy need to get involved with defending press independence and freedom all over the world, especially when they’re pushing legislation which would newspapers to lean on the government for funding? Reallyyy?

Oh I am so sure I’m going to be talking about all this legislation a lot in weeks to come. This could be really interesting.