There's an intriguing article by Gary Kamiya at salon.com. If newspapers die, he writes, reporting dies and, along with it, our shared vision of life. The world will become a less-known and therefore more dangerous place. His suggested remedy:
This bleak situation has given rise to a once-unthinkable notion: removing the news from market forces altogether by subsidizing it. In a recent Op-Ed in the New York Times, two business analysts suggested turning newspapers into "nonprofit, endowed institutions -- like colleges and universities."
Most journalists probably find something vaguely creepy about this idea; it's a little too high-minded, abstract and self-congratulatory to fit with their self-image as regular Joes and Jills. There are also legitimate concerns whether foundations or other public supporters would influence editorial content or direction. But the alternative is disturbing.
A world without primary reporting will be literally less human. Talking to actual, live human beings, as opposed to reading documents or commentary or what they say online, has an innately moderating effect on one's approach. A good reporter sees issues in greater complexity because humans are complex.
This isn't as outlandish as it seems at first. As long as we're not talking about government subsidies, there aren't any First Amendment or Compromising the Watchdog issues. Many opinion journals are the products of think tanks that are subsidized by the people who believe in a cause. The Christian Science Monitor has been possible because of subsidies from that church. What would be required are insitutions and endowments that believe it is important to preserve what would be lost if newspapers perish. I'm not sure right now who they might be.
