[davidovitch]

In the December 2014 issue of Le Monde diplomatique there is an interesting article that investigates future possible press models within the French context: http://mondediplo.com/2014/12/13press (in English, but behind a pay wall). The authors argue that for public interest press (news, investigative journalism, etc), a shared publication and distribution institute/company should be funded by the government. In that way, the magazines/newspapers/whatever only have to finance the costs of the journalists and editors. Publication costs are carried by this joint/shared open publisher. The article is focussed on the French situation, and stresses that the government already hands out a yearly €1.6bn subsidy to the press, and end with concluding that funding a joint open publication institute will not be that much different money-wise compared to the current situation.

[Beltiras]

I agree that journalism is a public good. Having the government fund it sends shivers through my spine. Recently where I live the public broadcasting corp. was threatened with cutbacks due to a perceived slant in coverage. The threats were then carried out after the politician in question was given chairmanship of the parliamentary committee on the budget. That to me is so troublesome I don't consider it viable.

[davidovitch]

I guess this discussion is way off-topic at this point :-) But I find it interesting enough to keep it going. The real challenge is obviously to have this government funded publication company stay free of direct government interference. The article mentions a sort of tax that is levied before the wage is paid out, and should be delivered directly to the join publication house. Much in the same way as some European social security contributions are collected today. That would keep the funding away from the yearly government budgeting rounds.

No matter what system we think of, the powers at be will always try to influence the press and information. We can also see that in the current system, where large stakeholders can pressure/influence journalists and publications. I don't think the state has a monopoly here, on the contrary.

[innguest]

The government already funds mainstream media, it's called the FCC, which also means the state has a monopoly on the media it regulates.