By Justin Silverman
U.S. Sen. Cardin
How to remedy a failing newspaper industry? Bailouts. Micro-payments. Let capitalism take its course. Now, courtesy U.S. Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.), a new solution: Tax-exempt status.
Cardin introduced to the Senate in March a bill that would allow qualifying newspapers to be treated as non-profit organizations and reap the consequent tax benefits. Cardin’s effort is an affirmation to the ink-stained that those in Congress want their morning newspaper. But tax-exempt status would force publications to trade essential First Amendment freedoms in exchange for financial ones. Further, the idea that legislation is needed to protect the newspaper industry though well-intended is misguided. Focus should not be on saving newspapers, it should be on protecting its journalism.
The legislation intends to help those that publish “on a regular basis a newspaper for general circulation.” The publication must include “local, national and international news stories of interest” and its distribution must be “necessary or valuable in achieving an educational purpose.” Under the bill newspapers facing financial distress can obtain tax-exempt status under §501 of the Internal Revenue Code.
The financial incentive to do so is no doubt significant. But there is a trade-off found in §501(c)(3): No tax-exempt newspaper can “attempt to influence legislation” or “intervene in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.” In simpler terms, no editorials favoring a particular bill and no political endorsements. Considering the history of newspapers in this country, such a limitation would be outright offensive. Dan Kennedy explains the history of this provision here, but if the goal of Cardin’s legislation is to preserve the newspaper industry it fails in that it also dismantles the very principles upon which it was founded.
I understand that if Cardin’s legislation becomes law, newspapers can choose to forgo its remedy. The country is not doomed to an apolitical press at the bequest of Cardin. The senator is simply offering a potential crutch to an ailing industry that represents our collective appreciation for democratic principles and free speech. But it’s ineffective. And like other proposed remedies, it’s not needed. I’m beginning to agree with Michael Kinsley when he says ”If the New York Times disappears, there will still be news.”
There will still be news because information can be conveyed without print. Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote received a lot of play when several major newspapers recently folded: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” The public’s not reminded, however, that when those words were uttered, newspapers were the exclusive media. Radio, television and the Internet didn’t exist. So while newspaper loyalists cling to this quote, it’s more reasonable to think that one could substitute “journalism” for “newspaper” and still accurately reflect Jefferson’s belief.
It’s a belief that I hold as well. Journalism is needed for the sake of our democracy, but not necessarily ink on paper. Journalism can embody different media and acknowledging this changes the debate and makes legislation such as The Newspaper Revitalization Act look superfluous. It may save jobs, but democracy? Our watchdogs can survive in other homes.
Those homes are increasingly being built online. Cardin’s bill is a Band-Aid lending life support to an industry that instead needs a reincarnation. Instead of proposing legislation to preserve newspapers, we’d be better served protecting their function. What we need is legislation that helps newspapers more easily and more profitably transform themselves into a medium the public desires — even if that medium doesn’t leave readers with ink on their hands.
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 21, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Emily K.
Cardin’s bill is an interesting one; one that I bet any publisher in America would consider, even if for a moment. When I run my own newspaper it will never contain political endorsements. Ever, period. Political endorsements by newspapers are a clear slap in the face to every journalist struggling (sometimes during a two-year campaign) to remain objective while covering politics. So, the first requirement of Cardin’s bill wouldn’t be a problem for me. Bring on the NP status. The second limitation, however, wouldn’t be possible, primarily since newspapers would spend every waking minute in court justifying the objectivity of every story; there’s always at least one person who thinks all journalism is an attempt to influence some sort of legislation from the middle school cafeteria menu to bills before the state legislature. (And are they right? Probably.) Whether we try to or not, newspapers influence policy. Always, period. So scratch Cardin’s bill. No publisher would or should agree to those terms so bring on the taxes.
What Cardin’s bill really comes down to, however, is what newspapers AND journalism needs and that’s money. Unfortunatley newspapers have been cash machines for decades and therefore, the biggest cash machines have been able to do the (majority of) the best journalism. (Sounds an awful lot like America’s pastime, doesn’t it?) Yes, we need to protect journalism above all. But I firmly believe that the most important and significant journalism in this country has always come from newspapers. Not radio. Not television. Not magazines. And why is that? It’s because newspapers have been able to invest the resources into sending journalists to the front lines of Vietnam and investigate Watergate for 12 months: because they were ROLLING in cash for decades.
But now, newspaper cash is drying up. Forget the overseas investigations. How are we going to keep the lights on? And newspaper journalists aren’t the only ones who are worried. TV folks are shaking in their boots. Ever read the morning paper and then watch the evening news? It’s no coincidence they are one and the same.
Yes, there will be news if The New York Times dries up, but who will be there to cover it? The TV reporter who makes $18,000 a year? Frankly, I hope not. My argument is not that good journalism is linked to money. My argument is that good journalism is a profession, just like any other professional occupation. During the next few weeks I’m going to have to sit back and watch some of the best journalists I know walk way from the field because “journalism” isn’t providing enough for them to support their families. And that’s a problem.
Is it our own fault? Absolutely. Fat cat newspaper companies squandered money for decades. And in the last 8 years we’ve been giving away our hard-earned, hard-fought PROFESSIONAL work for free. Metallica realized that was the wrong thing to do, why can’t we?
Cardin’s bill is not ideal but I do think it speaks to the fundamentals of what we need more than we realize. Good journalists will have to be paid to be good journalists. Just like good accountants and good rockstars and good politicians. The only politician I know who doesn’t take a paycheck is Bloomberg and that’s ’cause he’s a billionaire. I believe in the fundamentals of journalism, free speech and the First Amendment just as much as anyone. The problem is, the podium that supported it most for the longest time is in serious jeopardy and could disappear if no one can afford to support it. I will stand behind my beliefs, my journalistic integrity and my love for journalism as long as I possibly can but at some point I have to pay my mortgage.
August 27, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Masterman Symposium to Feature NECN, GlobalPost Founder «
[...] strong proponent of free markets, I’ve previously criticized efforts to legislate remedies for the newspaper industry. Proponents of such legislation are quick [...]