Everyone knows from American history class that the First Amendment is the great protector of press freedom in the United States, barring Congress from “abridging” the sacred right to publish what you want to publish.
So does that means there’s a constitutional wall that separates government and the press, just as it separates church and state?
Not exactly. Contrary to popular perception, the Constitution has not prevented the government from being a supporter of the press, and in fact it has been a generous benefactor since the founding of the country.
In a report issued at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, my colleague Geoffrey Cowan and I concluded that federal, state and local governments have contributed billions of dollars a year to the commercial news business.
]]><![CDATA[
Even now, these governments devote upward of $2 billion in postal subsidies, public notices and tax breaks to the for-profit press, more than twice as much as they spend on public radio and television, which are widely understood government creations.
These findings come at a time of severe economic trauma in the news industry. A combination of the deep recession and an Internet-led digital revolution are pressuring news many news organizations in the extreme, and it’s not clear whether all – or even most – will survive.
Is there a role for the government in helping ensure that citizens continue to get the news and information they need in American democracy? One popular response is no; government has no place in subsidizing the news business. Our findings disagree: It has always taken a place, even before the country was founded.
As early as colonial America, postmasters set steeply discounted rates for publishers who sent their newspapers and magazines through the mail. At the same time, local jurisdictions began requiring that public agencies publish notice of official actions in newspapers. These practices would persist for more than 200 years, and they both would be enormously beneficial to publishers’ bottom lines.
By the late 1960s, postal subsidies were worth nearly $2 billion to newspapers and magazines (in today’s dollars), and public notices brought in hundreds of millions more in high-margin revenue. A combination of state and federal tax breaks for news magazines was worth another $1 billion (again in today’s dollars).
Now, though, those subsidies are in the midst of long-term decline. Starting in 1970, the Postal Service began to dial back its discounts for publishers. Today, they have all but vanished. The $2 billion worth of preferences in 1970 is down to $300 million. The same downward cycle appears to be starting now for public notices. Legislation has been introduced in at least 40 states to allow government-mandated public notices to move to the Internet, a move that would drastically reduce newspapers’ revenue and could eliminate it altogether.
All of which raises a question: If the government has supported the news industry for all of American history, shouldn’t it consider new forms of support now, when the survival of news businesses is in doubt?
Our answer is yes. Our report does not recommend specific new policies, and in fact observes that given the rapid growth of news and information in the digital world, it’s possible that government action may not be needed.
But we don’t know yet whether this happy outcome will occur. It’s also possible that citizens’ information needs will go wanting as legacy news operations continue to shrivel. For that reason, we urge policymakers to consider alternatives in which the government would help fill the gap – whether through technology innovations or public broadcasting investments or favorable tax policies.
In taking such steps, political leaders should know that their actions would not be radical departures. They would in fact be perfectly in sync with all of American history.
This column was originally published by AOL News.