That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange government bailouts, even dying business practises may… gasp for another few sordid breaths before they too will inevitably die.
And so, strained references aside, let’s get on with our regularly scheduled broadcast. Swedish public service media is having its mandate revised. Or so claims the fresh off the rocky start Swedish government. And as a key component of that revised mission statement, along with some meagre attempts at modernization, public service is to ”defend the commercial news media houses”.
So what? Don’t worry! It takes a moment. It will sink in before you’re done reading.
So, first thing’s first. I know there’re a few international readers out there on the internet. Never tell me I’m so dimwitted that I believe that my societal practises and cultural touchstones are the hub of all creation (I’m looking at you, US of A). I bet you may be confused as to what this strange thing called ”public service” really is. Does it bear the stench of socialism, you may wonder?
A little bit, I guess. Public service is, in short, publicly funded entertainment productions, education projects, and news coverage. Which sounds nothing short of State media the likes of Chinese CCTV (which is still the greatest media joke of all time). But state funded media can on occasion have an upside. The Swedish example, for example, is meant as a non-commercial alternative to the Swedish media climate. It is supposed to strive to educate and uplift the public, rather than to sell us advertisements. It is supposed to stay neutral and not align with any political parties or ideologies. And it is supposed to have media coverage even in the far flung corners of the country where commercial interests don’t see a profit in reaching.
And all of it is funded by taxes. By the citizenry, whether they like it or not.
It doesn’t accomplish all those goals, not by a long shot, but it’s supposed to try to! Studies show again and again that public service news coverage isn’t even nearly politically neutral, skewing heavily to the left. They don’t nearly reach all the corners of the Swedish map. Their strive to be non-commercial can go into such silly extremes that they’re not even allowed to mention brand names on their shows. And journalistic horror stories keep cropping up, detailing how reporters are bullied and pushed into ”correct” ideologically sanctioned opinions and angles. And no matter how many jumps and hoops our politicians put between themselves and the public service budget, to lend it non-partisan credibility, it is still those same politicians that appoint the head honcho of the public service organizations.
It is a mixed bag, suffice to say. Some like it. Some dislike it. Some hate it. Some love it.
But now, another mission that public service news coverage is supposed to do is ”to defend commercial news publishers”.
Why? Because it is by now readily apparent that trying to run an old-school news platform on the basis of subscribers is an act of beating a very, very, very, very, very dead horse. But even though traditional news media has been dying for decades, journalism is still an absolutely vital part of not only a democratic society, but of a Socratic society as well.
But why ever should it be the tax-funded part of journalism’s job to give CPR to the commercial part? Why should taxpayers have to give artificial support to commercialism? Doesn’t that go against the very core of the so-called ”self regulating” free market? If a business is too fragile, too old, too stupid, to function under its own set rules, why should it be kept alive?
But how though? How can tax-funded news coverage ”defend” commercial competition? By waving exclusivity and journalistic competence so that the life-supported old media giants can get there first? The press release doesn’t make it clear on just how public service is to accomplish this. Naturally, the Swedish government weren’t clear on the how. They rarely are.
It is almost vague and wrong-headed enough to suggest that media house lobbyism has had a hand in these new guidelines. Which wouldn’t be a first. The whole point of the widely hated and ridiculed EU Copyright Directive, and its articles 15 and 18, was to give the old news publishers another shot of adrenaline as they have been wasting away in their sick beds. Traditional news media lobbied hard to get that piece of loathed legislation through. It is no wonder that similar soft bailouts would be introduced nationally as well as internationally.
But journalism is good! And it gets even better with a multitude of journalistic actors on any given scene. But you can’t keep staving off the death of archaic business practises. You can’t keep rewarding turgid and inflexible business moguls that can’t or won’t change with the times. That is not how you promote media plurality. That is not how you incentivise change. That is how you let businessmen get away with bad behaviour. To let them just sit there, and whine, wait, and cannibalise themselves beyond recognition. Iä! Iä! Old media fhtagn!
Government bailouts rarely, if ever, work. It just doesn’t stave off disaster. It didn’t with Goldman-Sachs. It didn’t with Swedish Saab. It just costs resources. Time and money. Better spent on other activities. Like, for example, to support the evolution of smaller, slimmer, independent journalistic efforts instead.
But oh no. There’s a dead horse in the Swedish government’s yard. And they’re going to beat it ’till there’s nothing left but some residual bone and a bunch of blood-splattered daffodils.
/Sebastian Lindberg 11/6-2019
WastedWords 