A few notes on democracy and journalism

I think it's fair enough to say that the profession of journalism is a bit of a mess at the moment. From Herman and Chomsky's analysis of the five "filters" of journalism (see Manufacturing Consent, first chapter publicly available here and highly recommended) to the Murdoch monopoly mess, to direct billionaire manipulation of newspapers (see Bezos' directive to the Washington Post). So, in the spirit of "you can't stop me", I'm going to explain how I would fix journalism.

First, the general principles. Journalism happens, first and foremost, for democracy. The function of journalism is to hold those with power to account, and inform the public. It can also entertain, and be a venue for opinion and debate. These are both valuable things, but ought to remain secondary to the function of providing true information. If opinion contradicts fact, it's bad journalism. If a piece of news is entertaining, but not true, that's just fiction.

Bias is inevitable. The perspective of the writer(s) will always influence the facts of a piece of journalism. There's nothing that can be done to solve bias, but it can be mitigated. Also, sometimes a journalist will just get something wrong, for whatever reason. Sometimes journalists might be bribed, or act in interests other than to inform.

Journalism ought to be independent and unconstrained. Any power to restrict journalism will, probably inevitably, be used for malign reasons. Here is the first problem: if a journalist consistently contradicts the purpose of journalism, to inform and hold power to account, how are they to be corrected? If the state enforced "quality control" that is tantamount to censorship. If some sort of professional association handed out certificates of journalistic integrity, it is easy enough to see how bribery or incompetence could break that system.

News for profit doesn't work – Herman and Chomsky explain why, and it can be clearly observed that traditional (some say legacy) corporate news media is falling apart, and online news media can't make money. Only the public broadcasters, and some exceptions like the Guardian, have maintained their position. Is journalism just a relic of the past, to be replaced by social media?

I don't think so, but I think radical reform is required. Here's my proposed model: the government sets aside a certain percentage of its budget – perhaps constitutionally enshrined upper and lower limits – to fund independent journalism. Prospective journalists can apply for a stipend, and if granted, receive it for a set period. There can only be limited grounds for the cancellation of this stipend. If the funding needs to be reduced as part of a general budget, the necessary number of journalists that must lose their stipend is decided by lot. That's the general procedure.

There may need to be some limitations of who can apply to be a publicly-funded journalist. One might be age. Another might be location – to avoid concentration in certain areas and scarcity in others. Perhaps they ought to have received certificates of journalistic competency or recommendations from recognised institutions. Certainly they will need to make a commitment to journalistic integrity, perhaps by signing a code of ethics (see the MEAA's here). There is also reason to encourage otherwise marginalised voices.

Of course, there is likely to be more applicants than available stipends. In that case, I think already existing journalists should retain their positions, and the remainder chosen by lot. The giving out of stipends could operate on a rolling basis every six months, with any vacated stipends up for grabs, as well as new stipends available in the event of funding increases.

Forms of the stipend may differ, and could involve cash and in-kind benefits. It could simply be a cash allowance. Or perhaps it could be guaranteed housing as well as some cash. Maybe it should be a flat rate between all recipients, or perhaps the type of journalism might require more or less – say, a journalist who focuses on their Member of Parliament, and thus might need to travel between their electorate and the capital.

There must surely be some proof of output for funding to continue. Quantification might be difficult – investigative journalism might require long periods of time without writing, so the number of published pieces may be few. Some journalism is more focused on data and statistics than words, so the number of published words may be few. Then there's also photojournalism, surely as important as written news. This is one of the more difficult problems with this model.

Then there's the question of the type of output – both form and content. Form is relatively easy – I think all forms of journalism, given they include words or photographs, is legitimate. Written journalism, audio or podcast journalism, video journalism, photojournalism, as long as it communicates both meaning and truth, it ought to be counted. I do not count art as journalism, but I wouldn't be opposed to a separate scheme for artists, with different principles and systems.

Content is more difficult. It seems intuitive that the government shouldn't be funding outright misinformation and lies. But it also can't be that the government should decide truth and lies – that's the role of the people, assisted by journalists. I have a few ideas to help solve this, none of which I think are sufficient. First, individuals could report journalists as spreading lies (or perhaps hate speech, calls to violence, etc.). Once a certain number of people (who decides how many?) report a journalist, they are reviewed by a panel of experts (who decides who they are?), or perhaps jurors selected by lot. If the panel decides (how do they decide?) that the journalist's writing does not align with the code of ethics, and does not serve the public interest, that journalist ought to have their stipend cancelled. Of course, they should still have the right to publish, just not to be supported by the state.

But there are problems here too. What about journalists who focus on opinion pieces? Truth can get muddled by strong emotions about a certain topic, and holders of extreme ends of any debate will believe that the other side is plainly lying. What if the members of the panel are positioned at one of those extreme ends? What about satire? Does satire necessarily serve the public good? What about an investigative journalist that has gone so deep that they have uncovered the truth behind a lie believed by all levels of society – including both the government and the panel? Ought they to be silenced because everyone believes them to be telling a lie? I raise all of these issues not because I believe they are insurmountable, but because they ought to be acknowledged as weaknesses.

And what of readership levels? If a journalist was to produce a decent quantity of high quality, factual writing, in a variety of forms, but no one read their work, should they be funded by the state? I think so, but I don't think that it is beyond dispute, especially for the utilitarians in the room.

Moving on, should journalists receiving stipends be able to form associations, newspapers, and media organisations? Again, I think so, but there remains a risk of organisations forming with the funding and capacity to influence public opinion, perhaps as partisans or even in ways that threaten society. The solution to me is to trust in the people, and in other journalists to hold any emerging information power to account.

One essential requirement must be that all journalism produced by those funded by the stipend must be openly accessible. There should be no paywalls – the cost of the content has already been born by society in the form of the stipend. I think citizens ought to be able to donate money to journalists and journalistic organisations they favour, in order to reward high-quality news media, but there is obviously a necessity to limit these donations, to avoid the influence of any corporate interests or dependence on the money of some billionaire. Any donations ought not to be tax-deductible.

These are the main points of my concept of journalistic reform. In short: capable and independent citizens, funded almost unconditionally by society, are the best creators and distributors of writing. They are free from corporate, state, or other influence, and able to report even awkward facts and scandalous opinions.

Anyway, I write all of this not to be right, but to be wrong in an interesting way. You are very welcome to let me know your thoughts.