Abstract
The Guardian went to Essex to reveal the plight of Harlow, which 10 years ago had three local papers to choose from and now finds itself without a single title. Several residents said how much they missed local news, though how many had previously slaked this thirst for information by buying the Harlow Star was not made clear.
If local citizens were really interested, Harlow would not now be bereft. Unfortunately, many of us look at local journalism the way we look at banks and corner shops, being dismayed to see them disappear while struggling to recall the last time we walked in. The decline in sale has been encouraged by publishers, who have tended to respond to challenging times by cutting staff, reducing quality and raising prices.
The gap between our romantic view of local newspapers and loving them enough actually to buy one features in the Cairncross Review, a report commissioned by the government to see if anyone can find “a sustainable future for journalism”. The local press is particularly vulnerable in a world where online news is largely free and which has seen, in one decade, print sales of national and local newspapers halve, print ad revenues drop 69 per cent, and the number of UK “frontline journalists” fall from 23,000 to 17,000.
Those who reported from the magistrates’ court and council chamber evidently treasure the memories more than readers treasured the stories. Dame Frances Cairncross, employing the market forces rigour that a career on The Economist encourages, has no time for sentiment: “Now that it is possible to see online how many people read reports of local councils… it is all too evident that the numbers rarely justify the cost of sending a reporter.”
Yet, as the section of her report that looks at local media emphasises, this scrutiny of councils, courts and inquests remains one of the most important functions of journalism. It is “public interest news” and has undeniable public benefit. If only we could find a way of funding it.
Having properly rejected the government as the solution – “if the press is to act as an effective watchdog on government, it must not directly depend on it” – Dame Frances is not sure we can. Her report explores charitable status for local start-ups, funding for innovation and tax reliefs designed to encourage further investment in public interest news, all good ideas that can help only at the margins.
Her more promising proposal is an extension of the Local Democracy Reporting Service, the vehicle by which the BBC currently transfers £8million of licence-payers’ money into funding additional journalists, most of whom are attached to newspapers. It's a contentious scheme, partly because it looks like an attempt to buy off criticism resulting from the damage BBC online news has done to the local press and partly because this is public money subsidising a private sector that continues – for the most part – to make profits for its shareholders and pay large salaries to its bosses.
Cairncross suggests a new body – the Institute for Public Interest News free of commercial and political obligations, to provide a focal point for bodies interested in providing funds, run the Local Democracy Reporting Service and help inculcate media literacy in the next generations.
Readers must decide whether the analogy that Cairncross draws with the Arts Council is encouraging or terrifying. We generally feel the fewer organisations that get in the way of news-gathering, the better, but here is an idea that could fly. Let us put to one side worries about budgets, territorial ambition or mission creep. Let us believe that the kind of public-spirited figures attracted to such a body would not seek to dictate news agendas or wish to become a regulatory body. Let us hope that newspaper companies, which are not entirely blameless for the difficulties engulfing them, would avoid any temptation simply to divert funds.
Many philanthropists and foundations are eager to support the democracy that brought them wealth. The Institute for Public Interest News – a public body with a serious, if slightly pompous name - would encourage them to put money towards old-fashioned, unpopular, essential local journalism. And – for we should not be too sanctimonious about the source of money or the reason for its donation - if the big tech companies were to divert a little more of their winnings in the interests of reputation, we should take that too.
