Navigation | ||
My WhyNot? | ||
Icon Key | ||||||||||||
The community's level of support for this idea is...
| ||||||||||||
Paying for a free press | |||||||||||||||||
A free press is a prerequisite for a democracy or any other form of free society. However, the problem of out how to pay for it is as of yet unsolved -- each current model, such as ad revenues or subscriptions, have their shortcomings. So here's what I suggest: levying a special tax on all marketing and advertising activities. Marketing and advertising argue a predetermined position -- one that favors the corporation favoring it -- and often its purpose is to misinform the public in a way that advances its cause. Also, marketing and advertising costs far outweigh the amount of money being used to inform and educate the public. So it is these very activities that make a free press all the more necessary. Taxing them, say at a rate of 20%, and giving that money to nonprofits supporting independent newspapers and other news sources will even the balance between misinformation--or biased information--and credible information and reporting available to the public.
HereIsJimbo, Aug 03 2009
What do you think of this idea or comment?
| |||||||||||||||||
I agree
No opinion
I disagree![[SPAM]](http://www.whynot.net/images/flagasspam.png)
Flag as spamUsers who liked this idea also liked: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Add your comment
To some noticeable degree the "free" press must conform to it's financial base. At the present it is the businesses that advertise. If the government pays, the press must respond to government supervision.Not a good idea.
I agree with both of your points:
1) "To some noticeable degree the "free" press must conform to it's financial base. At the present it is the businesses that advertise." That is true and that is the problem, as there is a large social benefit to a free press but many free riders who do not pay for the benefits. Forming a larger revenue base -- whether through the means I suggest or a different way -- would help address that problem.
2) "If the government pays, the press must respond to government supervision." That is true too, and one role of the free press is to keep government honest. But I did not suggest that government distribute the funds generated from the tax but that a nonprofit entity or body do so -- an independent body comprised of journalists, etc. So while I like your thoughts I do not believe they refute the merits of my proposal.
It depends what you mean "free"
In the western world, "free" means "libre", in that the press can say what they like with no interference from the government. Yes, it is mostly a commercial industry which can be influenced by outside commercial interests, but that is an acceptable compromise.Yes, you could, in theory, have a press totally user supported.
"Free" can also mean not cost, in that the consumers not pay. Again, having advertisers and their influence is the price paid for that freedom.