Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Dear Readers:
In past columns, I have shared my concerns about the future of local news, as a growing number of organizations have downsized or closed in recent years. However, there have been some bright spots — including the introduction this week of Washington Senate Bill 5400.
This legislation would create a journalism grant program administered through the state. The funding would be generated by increasing an existing business tax surcharge — used for workforce training and education — that is already being levied on large software companies.
This surcharge would raise $20 million that would be distributed to local newspapers, broadcasters and digital publications, including My Edmonds News, MLTnews and Lynnwood Today. It’s estimated these grants could be in the range of $10,000 to $15,000 per journalist.
The bipartisan bill is sponsored by State Sen. Marko Liias, a Democrat who represents the 21st District that includes portions of Edmonds and Lynnwood, and State Sen. Matt Boehnke, a Republican from the Tri-Cities.
Brier Dudley of The Seattle Times, who writes frequently about the struggles of local journalism, noted in a Jan. 22 opinion piece that “SB 5400 would keep the lights on and seats filled in Washington newsrooms.
“Washington may have around 1,800 remaining journalists, which is down two-thirds after two decades of cuts and consolidation,” he continued. “Grants would save remaining jobs, encourage hiring and prevent further newspaper closures.”
Dudley called me Wednesday to ask whether such legislation would help smaller publications like ours. I told him that it would benefit us a lot, since we have a lean workforce of just three full-time employees plus some freelance writers and photographers to cover a population of 200,000. Those extra dollars would allow us to expand our coverage and help us further our goal of hiring more reporters.
Sen. Liias has been a supporter of local journalism for years, often pointing to his past work as a freelancer for the Mukilteo Beacon. He was also a co-sponsor of legislation — along with Sen. Karen Keiser — that created the Murrow News Fellow program, which is operated by the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University. The program places reporting fellows in communities for two years. The My Neighborhood News Network received one of those fellows — Angelica Relente — who since October 2023 has been covering housing issues in South Snohomish County.
Some may question this type of funding mechanism for local journalism. But if we value the watchdog role that journalism plays, if we value the reporting on our communities, our neighborhoods, our events, our artists, our children and, yes, even beautiful sunset photos — we need to find diverse strategies to keep local news alive.
Because right now, the future of local journalism is precarious.
In late 2022, the League of Women Voters of Washington released a study, “The Decline of Local News and Its Impact on Democracy.” It points to research that the loss of newspapers over the past 20 years has caused serious impacts: Fewer people running for office and fewer people voting, less community engagement, increased political partisanship, and negative outcomes in public health and public finance, among other concerns.
If you value how our publications — and other local news you read — contribute to our robust democracy, please consider supporting SB5400. The bill has its first hearing in the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee at 10:30 a.m. Tuesday, Jan. 28. You can sign up to testify in person or remotely, submit written testimony or send a comment to your legislators at this link.
With gratitude,
Teresa Wippel
Founder, President and CEO
My Neighborhood News Network
As much as I like, admire and financially support MEN, I have deep reservations of government funding of journalism. The old adage of “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” comes to mind. I fear that there will be subtle pressure to not report on government excess and corruption if government is paying for the news regardless of the political pary in control. SB500 would dole out $15,000,000 a year to Journalists as defined in the act. The act requires “An applicant selected for funding under this chapter shall provide the department information on the news coverage supported by this program.” Why? Presumably to determine future payments. The act also states regarding elgible receipiants: “The person engages professionals to create, edit, and produce original content concerning local or regional matters of public interest through activities, including conducting interviews,
observing current events, analyzing documents and other information, or fact checking through multiple firsthand or secondhand news sources.” Fact checking has been problematic and biased for some local news outlets. (Not MEN). I want to trust that local news is fair news and that the wall between news outlets and goverment remain solid.
Senator Liias means well but he is a leading proponent of big government. Government knows best is the creed of our current legislature and its majority . Government funding for independent journalists will not end well. Financial support for journalism coming from the State will lead to more partisan journalism and journalists should be independent of politics. The free market is where success and failure should remain. Neutrality will fade when livelihoods depend on government largesse. Liias knows this and he is using it as a way to gain control of the media. We have a one party state and the media will simply be a tool of the party in power. The Seattle Times is a failing paper. Not because people refuse to take the paper or subscribe online but because they have gone the way of the New York Times. They are partisan and they have lost 50% of their potential readers. Brier Dudley of the Seattle Times has been writing columns for years begging the government to bail them out. The editorial board at The Times have to be licking their chops. This is a sad day for journalism in Washington. The outcome is pre ordained. The State is broke but throwing around tax payer dollars to coral the media is too tempting to pass up. SB5400 should be defeated.
At first glance, this all Sounds reasonable. Then consider if these funds could be withheld should a local new organizations take ….or not take positions on issues that could be in contrary to what our state (or agencies)want? Does it have the potential to limit free speech and the watchkeeping that the founding fathers granted to the free press and make local news originations beholding to the wishes of government?
I hear and understand the concerns of those who have worries about separation of journalism and government. I would reply this way: How do news organizations handle conflicts of interest with other funding sources — namely donors and advertisers. Every money source has a possibility of influence but ethical journalism organizations have a strong firewall between funding and news coverage. — Teresa Wippel
I have no doubt that MEN will not be influenced by funding of any kind. However, a private business purchasing advertising space or a private donor are not the same as ‘The Government’ awarding tax dollars to the media. SB5400 sets a bad precedent. Our founders would be skeptical. While you may never bow to influence peddling, over time, others will.
Thanks for your opinion, Scott. I am not sure the founders thought about how journalism would be sustainably funded. — Teresa
They would not have thought about it at all. Why? They could not have imagined that the government would fund independent journalism. It would have been unthinkable. Can you imagine Alexander Hamilton hoping to profit from his writings? Thank you King but I still disagree.
It’s a “bipartisan” bill also sponsored by a Republican state senator from the Tri-Cities, so apparently there are at least a few Republicans in Eastern WA. who don’t think this is some sort of clandestine affront to their view of what is correct in political thinking or a danger to become so. It sounds like the funding will be provided from a tax increase on large software companies that have had a huge influence on the change in how we get and distribute information in general in the entire world, not just the United States or little ‘ol Edmonds. Where is the similar concern and outcry about huge organizations like Murdock’s News Corp. buying up newspapers and television outlets and controlling their editorial content and interfering in the politics of the U.S. and other countries. This is just more of the pot calling the kettle black and people trying to control what they want other people to hear and think is true.
The bill being bipartisan is irrelevant. Independent media should not be government funded, period. Rupert Murdoch and George Soros are not the government . They are private citizens with very different viewpoints and whether you believe they are reprehensible or wonderful doesn’t matter. As private citizens we can consume any news media we choose or none at all. That is the free market.
The Government works for us but when the government starts picking winners and losers they have overstepped. Mr Wright seems to have very distinct biases but it’s his right as a citizen. As a citizen he can choose to support, watch, read, listen to or quote anyone or any opinion he chooses.
I doubt there is any evil or undisclosed intent behind SB5400, however, if it passes the government will be giving financial support to independent news media. Government programs rarely end, they only grow and with growth comes influence.
Wanting to keep potential government influence out of the media is not “people trying to control what they want other people to hear and think”. In fact it is just the opposite.
I believe these programs to help local news media are set up to be content neutral, so no politician or bureaucrat is picking winners and losers based on what news they cover or how they cover it. So I’m comfortable with such programs.
It’s a worthy endeavor, if only an experiment in creating an environment where news reporting might (hopefully) flourish again. Try to imagine SW Snohomish County if MEN and The Beacon and The Herald all disappeared. Given what’s happening in the media world these days, that’s not an impossible future.
Mr. Victor, the difference between you and I is that I present my comments as exactly what the are – the mere opinions of one citizen. You, on the other hand, present comments that are really just your opinion as great truths that must be believed by all and not questioned. For example, “the bill being bipartisan is irrelevant,” and, “government funding for independent journalists will not end well.” I totally agree with you that the government should not be in the business of controlling content in any journalism but that is not what this bill is promoting. It is promoting the idea that independent journalism with equal presentation of all ideas and opinions is a critical part of maintaining Democracy that every citizen is able to take part in. That is the theory behind having public radio and public television which I suspect you also oppose as another “big government program” gone bad. Indeed, the concept of this bill is really no different than the concept that even poor people must have adequate representation when charged with a crime and, if they can’t afford an attorney, the government will provide one. You seem to believe that a couple rich guys controlling information is just “freedom” but the government making sure everyone gets a voice is “pending tyranny.”
And…the Washington State Govt through the grants would control the narrative!
…Just sayin’
The Washington State League of Women Voters, which supports SB 5400, offered this thought: The founders of our nation did see the value of supporting the press — and not only in the First Amendment to the Constitution. That’s because when the founders established the U.S. Postal Service, they granted huge subsidies to it to offset the cost of delivering newspapers all up and down the eastern seaboard. Those subsidies were substantial enough that it cost a person six to 25 cents to mail a letter, but only one to 1.5 cents to mail a newspaper.
Donald, interesting accusation you make. I know you are a man of few words but I’d be interested in your theory of exactly how the government would pull that control of the narrative off? The bill is to tax large software information companies to provide funding to small community newspapers to hire reporters, so unless the bill also says they can only hire reporters who support a Liberal viewpoint, I don’t see how your accusation could come true. You know, some of those small community newspapers are in Eastern WA. (say a town like Republic which is about as conservative a town as you can find anywhere) and they just might hire a recently graduated Journalism student from a Conservative school like Oral Roberts University in Tulsa OK. Not everything is a big Liberal government conspiracy . . . Just sayin”
I see a big difference between cheap mail and direct payments to jounalists. Business class mail arguably helps all businesses sending junk mail. However it is not a direct payment of taxpayer money to the business . What do you think is going to be required to meet the requirement of “An applicant selected for funding under this chapter shall provide the department information on the news coverage supported by this program.”? How will future applicants be judged as worthy of payment? Who will make that judgement? Seems ripe for manipulation so that only those who tow the government line are deemed worthy. Dangerous in my view.
Mr. Bucklin, you note a distinction, but it’s not really a difference. Whether it’s subsidized mail or payment to hire a reporter, the results still accrue in the publisher’s pocketbook.
I could find no evidence in the bill that some politician or bureaucrat will be picking winners and losers based on what news they cover or how they cover it. If you can find such evidence, please advise so bill sponsors can be contacted and asked to improve the bill’s language.
I still marvel that of all the professions that existed in 1789, the press is the only one explicitly called out in the Constitution of the United States. It’s right there in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom…of the press…” We owe it to the Founders to maintain an economic environment that allows that profession to flourish and fulfill its intended role.
Roger:
I did not write the bill so I ask what is the intent of the drafter and sponser who I understand is Marco Liias? Why are recepiants required to provide “the deparment information on the news coverage supported by this program.”? What information and for what purpose? I support a free press but paying for the press with taxpayer money is not a function required or desireable for government. The First amendment prohibits Congress from making laws that abridge a free press and/or abridge the right of free speech. Abridge means “to reduce someone’s freedom, rights, etc.:” In otherwords to restrict a free press by law. Paying for the press is common in China and Russia and the governments there control the message. Do we really want to put that camel’s nose under our tent?
I just read the original bill and the criteria for how the organizations and people are chosen to participate in the program are quite rigorous with exceptions to being allowed to participate spelled out in no uncertain terms. The reasons for the applicant having to report information back about what they are reporting on, on a biennial basis is to make sure they are actually performing their duties of reporting in the neutral and unbiased way that is spelled out in the legislation, not some clandestine attempt to control the content they are presenting. Almost all private and public grants come with such provisions providing for some sort of oversight. The proverbial “some strings attached.”