ArticlePDF Available


The American press has sought to negotiate structural tensions between profit and principle ever since it first commercialized (Baldasty, 1992). While long-standing radical media criticism attests to an awareness of commercial media’s structural problems (McChesney and Scott, 2004; Pickard, 2015a), communication scholarship has too often ignored and accommodated the market’s effects on journalism. Given accumulating evidence of market failure, this silence is becoming untenable. It’s beyond time we clearly indict commercialism for driving journalism into the ground and begin the hard work of restructuring a media system according to democratic needs, not profit imperatives.
2019, Vol. 20(1) 154 –158
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
DOI: 10.1177/1464884918808955
The violence of the market
Victor Pickard
University of Pennsylvania, USA
An invisible force oppresses journalism. It summarily dismisses reporters and decimates
newsrooms across the United States and beyond. Those still employed must labor under
increasing pressures that debase their craft. Entire regions and issues go uncovered at a
time when public service journalism is desperately needed.
This force is ‘the market’, a system of power relationships and resource allocations that
largely determines – especially in the United States where it’s mostly unregulated – what
journalism is funded and what’s allowed to perish. The commercial logic driving this
system isn’t troubled by democracy. It seeks only to profit, usually from advertising.
The American press has sought to negotiate structural tensions between profit and
principle ever since it first commercialized (Baldasty, 1992). While long-standing radical
media criticism attests to an awareness of commercial media’s structural problems
(McChesney and Scott, 2004; Pickard, 2015a), communication scholarship has too often
ignored and accommodated the market’s effects on journalism. Given accumulating evi-
dence of media failure, this silence is becoming untenable. It’s beyond time we clearly
indict commercialism for driving journalism into the ground and begin the hard work of
restructuring a media system according to democratic needs, not profit imperatives.
When commercialism trumps democracy
Although journalism’s structural attributes often escape serious scrutiny, Trump’s
election rendered visible market-driven pathologies that degrade media systems.
Privileging ratings and profits over democratic discourse, typical news coverage trivi-
alized and sensationalized the elections in horse-race style reporting, while offering
almost no substantive policy analysis whatsoever (Patterson, 2016; Pickard, 2018).
This wasn’t the result of a few bad journalists or news organizations; rather, it evi-
dences systemic problems stemming from the extreme commercialism driving our
entire news media apparatus.
Corresponding author:
Victor Pickard, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Funding Models
Pickard 155
Telltale symptoms include the following: Growing precarity in journalistic labor as
news organizations cut costs and try to do more with less; an emphasis on clickbait and
deceptive and invasive forms of advertising as news outlets chase ever-diminishing digi-
tal ad revenues. The latter encourages a reliance on corporate pay-to-play practices (such
as native advertising and sponsored content) and surveillance that exposes readers’ pri-
vacy – without their consent – to third-party data-brokers (Libert and Pickard, 2015).
But the most glaring manifestation of the market’s destruction of journalism is the
sheer loss of jobs: the newspaper industry has been reduced by more than 50% since
2001 according to the U.S. bureau of labor statistics. Creating vast ‘news deserts’
(Abernathy, 2016), newspaper closures, bankruptcies, and extreme downsizing are accel-
erated by ‘vulture capitalists’ swooping in to profit from the scraps (Reynolds, 2018).
Little evidence suggests that any commercial model will emerge to sustain the journal-
ism that democracy requires.
All democratic theories and foundational principles – including the First Amendment
itself – assume a thriving press system. The Fourth Estate’s current collapse is a profound
social problem that screams for public policy intervention. That no such intervention has
occurred stems as much from ‘discursive capture’ as it does from regulatory failure
(Pickard, 2015b). We need to reframe the debate.
Journalism crisis = market failure
A vocabulary for describing this problem has long existed. However, journalism studies’
disconnect from political economic analyses (Pickard, 2017) has led to a paucity of
scholarship focusing on commercial media’s structural constraints. One useful concept
from the political economic literature is ‘market failure’, which aptly captures journal-
ism’s demise (Baker, 2002; Pickard, 2015a). Market failure describes situations where
public goods such as news and information are given inadequate support, having detri-
mental effects on society.
The reluctance to discuss market failure, what I refer to in another context as ‘the
great evasion’ (Pickard, 2014), stems from a number of characteristics in the communi-
cation field. Scholars are loathe to sound reductive, over-deterministic, and, worst of all,
Marxist. In the field’s early years, to criticize the market was to seem un-American and
subversive, potentially hurting one’s career (Pickard, 2015a, p. 201). Silences and blinds-
pots emerged over time.
Even otherwise critical media scholars, such as Michael Schudson, have given rela-
tively little attention toward critiquing the market’s effects on journalism. In response to
Benson’s (2017) charges of de-emphasizing commercialism in his work, Schudson
(2017) states that ‘It is a mistake to see what has become of journalism in the past half
century as primarily the story of ‘market failure’’.
This is a dubious claim, especially when looking at the economics of journalism over
the past two decades. In several key respects, a history of American media is a history of
market failure (Pickard, 2015a). Commercial constraints in the press have long created
barriers for particular voices and views. The press has never fully lived up to its demo-
cratic expectations and obligations. Journalism’s public service mission and its commer-
cialism have always been in tension. Indeed, the very project of developing ethical codes
156 Journalism 20(1)
and professional standards was to prevent journalism from being overwhelmed by busi-
ness priorities (Kaplan, 2002). What we’re witnessing today is an apotheosis of those
tensions, a culmination of long-standing structural contradictions in commercial journal-
ism. But our analyses of this crisis remain deeply impoverished.
In the United States, we treat the market’s effects on journalism – as we treat the mar-
ket’s effects on nearly everything – as an inevitable force of nature beyond our control
or, at the very least, a public expression of democratic desires. This ‘market ontology’
simultaneously naturalizes the market’s violence against journalism and forecloses on
alternative models (Pickard, 2015b). Ultimately, this resignation ensures that society
won’t attempt a serious public policy response to a major social problem.
By this logic, if publics (or rather, advertisers, investors, and media owners) don’t
support certain kinds of journalism, we must let them wither. This position’s inherent
absurdity is cast into stark relief if we imagine designing our public education according
to a similar commercial logic. If students and their parents elect not to pay for civics
class, then it’s discontinued. Or consider academic labor: if scholars’ journal articles
aren’t receiving enough clicks, their research agendas must be abandoned. While it
seems preposterous in its extreme, it’s precisely this kind of savage logic that’s snuffing
out journalism in broad daylight.
The path forward: De-commercializing journalism
While journalism faces external threats ranging from oppressive state governments to
changes in audiences and technologies, the structural challenges posed by the market are
existential. Therefore, as much as possible, we should either remove news production
from the market entirely or minimize commercial pressures.
Five general approaches are conducive to such a project:
1. Establishing ‘public options’ (i.e. noncommercial/non-profit, supported by pub-
lic subsidies) such as well-funded public media and municipal broadband
2. Breaking up/preventing monopolies and oligopolies to encourage competition
and diversity, and to lessen profit-maximizing behavior;
3. Regulating news outlets via public service obligations such as impartiality and
ascertainment of society’s information needs;
4. Enabling worker control by unionizing newsrooms, facilitating employee-owned
institutions, and establishing professional standards that buffer journalism from
business operations;
5. Community governance of newsrooms, especially as newspapers transition to
non- or low-profit structures that are incentivized by tax laws.
I discuss the politics, discourses, and policies required to actualize these alternatives
elsewhere (Pickard, 2015a), but establishing this noncommercial vision as a long-term
normative goal is in itself a worthwhile project.
Of course, removing commercial imperatives won’t solve all journalism-related prob-
lems. Deeply embedded cultural orientations, hierarchies, and routines – both within
Pickard 157
newsrooms and in the broader society – will persist after removing journalism from the
market. But de-commercialization is an important first step toward democratization. It
opens the door for a journalism that’s universally accessible, but attentive to different
global contexts and cultural particularities.
Salvaging a non-profit model from the ashes of market-driven journalism goes far
beyond nostalgia or seeking to recover a golden age that never existed. This isn’t about
finding the right business model to preserve the status quo. Commercialism lies at the
heart of this crisis, and removing it could be transformative. Any path toward reinventing
journalism must acknowledge that the market is its destructor, not savior.
The ravages of the market escape the same level of alarm than other risks facing jour-
nalism today. Without minimizing the life-and-death threats to journalists around the
world, we must also confront this more subtle violence. Communication scholars have
an important role to play in clarifying the structural roots of this social problem and
expanding the political imaginary for potential futures. We must identify alternatives and
help chart a path toward actualizing them.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
Abernathy PM (2016) The rise of a new media baron and the emerging threat of news deserts.
Report, Center for Innovation and Sustainability in Local Media, Chapel Hill, NC, 16
October. Available at:
Baker CE (2002) Media, Markets, and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Baldasty G (1992) The Commercialization of News in the Nineteenth Century. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Benson R (2017) Maybe things aren’t so bad, or are they?: Michael Schudson’s ambivalent cri-
tique of commercialism. Journalism Studies 18: 1210–1223.
Kaplan R (2002) Politics and the American Press: The Rise of Objectivity, 1865–1920. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Libert T and Pickard V (2015) Think you’re reading the news for free? New research shows you’re
likely paying with your privacy. The Conversation, 6 November. Available at: https://the-
McChesney R and Scott B (2004) Our Unfree Press: 100 Years of Radical Media Criticism. New
York: The New Press.
Patterson T (2016) Harvard study: Policy issues nearly absent in presidential campaign coverage.
The Conversation, 20 September. Available at:
Pickard V (2014) The great evasion: Confronting market failure in American media policy.
Critical Studies in Media Communication 31(2): 153–159.
Pickard V (2015a) America’s Battle for Media Democracy: The Triumph of Corporate
Libertarianism and the Future of Media Reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pickard V (2015b) The return of the nervous liberals: Market fundamentalism, policy failure, and
recurring journalism crises. The Communication Review 18: 82–97.
158 Journalism 20(1)
Pickard V (2017) Rediscovering the news: Journalism studies’ three blind spots. In: Boczkowski P
and Anderson CW (eds) Remaking the News: Essays on the Future of Journalism Scholarship
in the Digital Age. Boston, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 47–60.
Pickard V (2018) When commercialism trumps democracy: Media pathologies and the rise of the
misinformation society. In: Boczkowski P and Papacharissi Z (eds) Trump and the Media.
Boston, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 195–201.
Reynolds J (2018) Meet the vulture capitalists who savaged ‘The Denver Post’. The Nation, 13
April. Available at:
Schudson M (2017) Second thoughts: Schudson on Schudson. Journalism Studies 18: 1334–1342.
... Sustainable funding is one of the most pressing issues, if not the most pressing issue of modern journalism (e.g. Pickard, 2019). How news media funds itself will have a profound effect on the topics it covers, the quality of its coverage and the relationship it pursues with its audiences. ...
The ongoing change in the young audience media consumption behaviour merits examination, as it may have consequences for the trustor–trustee relationship between the young and news organizations in the future. The chapter investigates psychological factors that can influence young users’ decisions to entrust media and how used technology may affect such decisions. Results from six online workshops with Finnish youth and university-level journalism students in Finland and Sweden (N = 32) are presented and mirrored with trend reports within the fields of journalism and technology. The chapter illustrates factors that may promote trust among the young, and their suggestions for how media organizations may support these. It concludes that many news organizations have a long way to go to understand how the young use technology and think about their platforms.
... Several studies have been carried out to identify ethical issues or dilemmas specifically concerned with online journalism, in an environment of convergence of means, techniques, supports, and formats (Deuze, 2010), with the certainty that nowadays all journalism develops in a digital environment (Friend & Singer, 2007). There seems to be a consensus on the issues raised by the new media context (Riordan, 2014) that do not find an answer in the traditional ethical codes: the pressures of the speed of information, to the detriment of accuracy and the need for verification (Fenton, 2010;Martins, 2019); the prevalence of anonymity (or the ease of creating false identities) at multiple levels, which affects the principle of transparency; the risk of taking responsibility away from journalists when it comes to hypertext, an usual tool of the digital universe; the blurring of boundaries between what is public and what is private (especially in social media), which opens the way to confusion and abuse; the increasing porosity between editorial and commercial areas, which jeopardises the fragile credibility of journalism in the face of market demands (Pickard, 2019); the constant presence of metrics and immediate feedback of the public (likes, page-views, comments, retweets…), which increasingly conditions the autonomy of editorial decision. ...
Full-text available
A pandemia da covid-19 e o subsequente processo de confinamento conduziram a linhas de convulsão em diferentes setores da sociedade. Marcado por um contexto de instabilidade e incerteza, onde diferentes manifestações de transformação tecnológica, económica e social potenciam novas práticas e convenções, bem como suscitam novos e renovados desafios deontológicos, o jornalismo não é exceção. Com base nas respostas de um inquérito a 890 jornalistas portugueses, o presente artigo procura mapear os efeitos do estado de emergência de março a abril de 2020 nas práticas e rotinas, e nos preceitos ético-profissionais de uma atividade que avoca uma reavivada relevância num ambiente de desinformação e “infodemia”. Mais do que revelarem novos problemas, os resultados sugerem uma acentuação dos desafios e dilemas pré-existentes. No plano das práticas, indicia-se uma domiciliação relativamente transversal da atividade. Este fenómeno é acompanhado por marcas de despersonalização do contacto com as fontes e eventos, e por sinais de isolamento social dos jornalistas. No campo ético-deontológico, sublinha-se a emergência de questões deontológicas particulares no contexto da pandemia, onde os aspetos relacionados com o rigor — rejeição do sensacionalismo, distinção clara entre factos e opiniões ou repúdio de quaisquer formas de censura —, assim como os elementos subjacentes ao contacto com as fontes, assumem especial dimensão.
The chapter focuses on the question of how changing business strategies of Slovenian commercial news media are impacting the journalism–audience relationship. The authors have conducted 38 interviews with journalists and editors, marketing executives, social media and analytics specialists and analyzed annual reports and other relevant investor-oriented forms of communication. Based on the analysis of this data, they identify several trends that will shape the relationship between journalists and their audiences. The impact of market demands on content will continue to increase, leading to more content that is either cost-effective to produce or has high potential for monetization, either because of audience interests or advertiser demands for blending editorial content with advertising. Additionally, the search for income sources outside of advertising will lead to a pluralization of business models and additional ways news media will attempt to engage audiences and include them in non-media business ventures like event management.
Disinformation and other forms of manipulative, antidemocratic communication have emerged as a problem for Internet policy. While such operations are not limited to electoral politics, efforts to influence and disrupt elections have created significant concerns. Data-driven digital advertising has played a key role in facilitating political manipulation campaigns. Rather than stand alone incidents, manipulation operations reflect systemic issues within digital advertising markets and infrastructures. Policy responses must include approaches that consider digital advertising platforms and the strategic communications capacities they enable. At their root, these systems are designed to facilitate asymmetrical relationships of influence.
Full-text available
In this study, I explored the features of news organizations related to journalists’ autonomy, burnout, and misinformation. People try to protect and acquire resources valuable to themselves physically and psychologically, thus in situations when they are losing or about to losing the resources, stress or burnout is likely to occur. Based on the conservation of resources theory and the job demands-resources model, four types of organizational characteristics that may influence journalists’ autonomy and burnout were considered: workload, ads-PR-sales work, ideological differences between journalists and news organizations, and the degree to which the news organization performs journalistic roles. I assumed that, for journalists, excessive workload, pressure on promotional work, and the organization’s ideology are job-demands factors or stressors, but that pride in the social roles of their news organization is a valuable resource. Thus, I hypothesized that the job-demands would reduce journalists’ autonomy and increase their burnout. In addition, how the four organizational factors along with autonomy and burnout are related to journalists’ misinformation was investigated. Using secondary data from journalists (N = 1,956) provided by the Korea Press Foundation, a series of regression analyses were conducted. As expected, the higher the work hours (workload) or the ads-PR-sales work, the lower the journalists’ job autonomy. Also, journalistic role perception increased autonomy, but ideological differences were not related to autonomy. Regarding burnout, as reliability and factor analyses indicated, the three components (emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced efficacy) of burnout were separately analyzed. Work hours significantly increased emotional exhaustion and cynicism, as expected, while interestingly, those who worked more time tended to report higher efficacy in their work. Ads-PR-sales work consistently increased the three factors of burnout. Ideological differences were positively related to emotional exhaustion but neither to cynicism or reduced efficacy. The perception of organization’s journalistic roles was negatively related to cynicism and reduced efficacy but not related to emotional exhaustion. Journalists’ job autonomy was negatively related to the three symptoms of burnout, taking the four organizational features into account. Also, autonomy was moderated the relationships between ideological differences and cynicism and between journalistic role perception and reduced efficacy. Finally, those journalists who admitted that they had ever made incorrect reports within a year tended to work more, including ads-PR-sales work, perceive journalistic roles poorly, and suffer from the reduction of efficacy. With these factors considered, autonomy increased the odds ratio of having incorrect reports. This study showed the consistent negative impact of ads-PR-sales work, while the possibility of pride in organization as valuable workplace resource for journalists. These results generally support the job demands-resources model and the conservation of resources theory and provide implications for journalism studies and practice.
Full-text available
Članek obravnava protipolno razmerje med digitalnimi platformami in tradicionalnimi mediji. Za to razmerje je značilno, da zaobsega tako vrednostno nasprotovanje in elemente konkurenčnega odnosa (saj digitalne platforme in tradicionalni mediji tekmujejo za pozornost občinstva) kot tudi elemente nesimetričnega odvisniškega odnosa (saj postajajo tradicionalni mediji vse bolj prisiljeni slediti logiki digitalnih platform). V članku, ki izhaja iz empirične raziskave (analize intervjujev s sodelavci in letnih poročil iz izbranih slovenskih medijskih hiš), je ugotovljeno, da je omenjeno razmerje globoko vpisano v mnogih različnih vidikih strukture slovenskih medijev. Kot je analizirano v posamičnih sekcijah razprave, se odraža na ravni sprememb 1) medijskega trga, 2) poslovnih strategij medijev, 3) novinarskega dela in strukture medijskih organizacij, 4) selekcijskih principov, 5) navad občinstev in 6) kakovosti informiranja. Izhajajoč iz perspektive tradicionalnih medijev v izbranem geografskem in časovnem okviru, je članek nadgradnja preteklega raziskovalnega dela predvsem s poskusom zaobsega celostnega pregleda stanja, ki je posledica strukturnih sprememb družbenega ko-municiranja zaradi vpliva digitalnih platform. V zaključku članka avtorja obravnavano problematiko postavita v širši družbenopolitični kontekst in ugotavljata, da četudi je digitalnim platformam uspelo nasloviti mnoge zgodovinske pomanjkljivosti tradicionalnih medijev, so po drugi strani še povečale neenakost v družbenem komuniciranju.
Full-text available
The newspaper industry is in a deepening revenue crisis and the advertising side of the news business has virtually collapsed as a result of global competition with technology platforms, as well as the Covid-19 outbreak. This study examines the business of digital journalism through a revenue diversification lens and maps how the revenue streams of a national newspaper industry is shifting. Our case study is the Norwegian newspaper industry’s revenue streams from 2006 to 2019, a media market deemed particularly successful in making readers pay for news online. By means of industry data, we measure revenue diversification by applying the Revenue Diversity Index—an index which quantifies the number of revenue streams and the distribution amongst them for the whole newspaper industry. The findings identify a forced diversification which challenges assumptions of a simple and positive relationship between revenue diversification and economic performance. We find that revenue structures have flipped from an advertising based model to an audience dominated model, with a larger diversity of revenue sources but lower total revenues overall. The increasing prices of digital journalism may further expand knowledge gaps in the population between those willing and able to pay and those who are not.
This article examines how US community media organisations anchored to public, educational and government (PEG) cable channels facilitated community resilience during the 2020 pandemic. We find evidence that they served as active “meso-agents” (institutional actors) in local communication networks. Some 230 completed survey responses and 10 open-ended interviews with PEG staffers demonstrated that access media commonly performed essential functions including official and community communication and teacher training in new virtual platforms; providing news, especially coordinating official information; and providing “contactless community,” with virtual versions of ritual occasions. These creative responses also suggest new ways to address “news deserts” in the US, if chronic problems with spotty broadband, underfunding of PEG services and lack of federal incentives can be addressed.
Full-text available
In this essay, I attempt to shed light on Michael Schudson’s theoretical and political position vis-à-vis commercialism as a shaping force of journalism. I document and analyze Schudson’s criticisms of market pressures on journalism, his criticisms of other critics of commercialism whom he sees as going too far, and then, the limits of the position he stakes out for himself—which is effectively, given his position as the authoritative synthesizer of the sociology of news, a position for journalism studies as a whole. In homage to Schudson’s classic alliterative model of “How Culture Works,” through five magic “R” words (rhetorical force, resolution, retrievability, retention, and resonance), I argue that the letter “C” unites the five reasons why Schudson is reluctant to overemphasize commercialism’s negative effects on journalism. It’s Complicated. There are Countervailing forces outside of the market and even when there are not, the market itself is self-Contradictory. Don’t underestimate the power of Contingency. And if all else fails, blame it on Culture.
Full-text available
By providing historical context for the recurring regulatory retreat in the face of structural problems in the news media, this study examines the policy discourse that continues to define the US journalism crisis and government’s inability to confront it. To contextualize this pattern, I compare two historical junctures, the first occurring in the 1940s, exemplified by the Hutchins Commission, and the second occurring in the more recent policy debates during the years 2009-2011, exemplified by the Waldman Report. Both of these historical moments represented a societal response to a journalism crisis, and both entailed deeply normative discussions about the role of media in a democratic society and government’s role in managing that relationship. A comparison of these historical case studies brings into focus recurring weaknesses in liberal reform efforts. Specifically, it highlights what I refer to as the “discursive capture” reflected in common assumptions about the proper relationship between media and government, and how this American paradigm is constrained by an implicit market fundamentalism.
Full-text available
The history of American media is in many ways a history of market failure. Yet these recurring patterns almost always go unrecognized in mainstream policy discourse. Because media are special kinds of goods and services, the market's failure to provide them is particularly deleterious for democratic governance. The “public good” qualities and other characteristics intrinsic to media result in a kind of systemic market failure that cannot be entirely eliminated. However, this market failure can be reduced or compensated for via public policy that recognizes the tremendous positive externalities associated with a healthy media system.
Government interventions in media markets are often criticized for preventing audiences from getting the media products they want. A free press is often asserted to be essential for democracy. The first point is incorrect and the second is inadequate as a policy guide. Part I of this book shows that unique aspects of media products prevent markets from providing for audience desires. Part II shows that four prominent, but different, theories of democracy lead to different conceptions of good journalistic practice, media policy, and proper constitutional principles. Part II makes clear that the choice among democratic theories is crucial for understanding what should be meant by free press. Part III explores international free trade in media products. Contrary to the dominant American position, it shows that Parts I and II's economic and democratic theory justify deviations from free trade in media products.
This contribution is a recording of the CAMRI research seminar held at the University of Westminster on November 19, 2014, in which Victor Pickard presented his book "America’s Battle for Media Democracy: The Triumph of Corporate Libertarianism and the Future of Media Reform": Why do American media have so few public interest regulations? How did the American media system become dominated by a few corporations, and why are structural problems like market failures routinely avoided in media policy discourse? By tracing the answers to many of these questions back to media policy battles in the 1940s, Victor Pickard explains how this happened and why it matters today. Drawing from extensive archival research, the book uncovers the American media system’s historical roots and normative foundations. His book charts the rise and fall of a forgotten media reform movement to recover alternatives and paths not taken. As much about the present and future as it is about the past, the book proposes policies for remaking media based on democratic values for the digital age. Victor Pickard is an assistant professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. Previously he taught media studies at NYU and the University of Virginia, and he worked on media policy in Washington, D.C. as a Senior Research Fellow at the media reform organization Free Press, the public policy think tank the New America Foundation, and Congresswoman Diane Watson’s office. He has published numerous journal articles and book chapters on the history and political economy of media institutions and media reform activism. His op-eds on media policy debates and the future of journalism have appeared in news outlets like The Guardian, The Seattle Times, The Huffington Post, and The Philadelphia Inquirer. He is the editor (with Robert McChesney) of Will the Last Reporter Please Turn out the Lights, and the author of America’s Battle for Media Democracy. He tweets at @VWPickard.
How did the American media system become what it is today? Why do American media have so few public interest regulations compared with other democratic nations? How did the system become dominated by a few corporations, and why are structural problems like market failures routinely avoided in media policy discourse? By tracing the answers to many of these questions back to media policy battles in the 1940s, this book explains how this happened and why it matters today. Drawing from extensive archival research, the book uncovers the American media system’s historical roots and normative foundations. It charts the rise and fall of a forgotten media reform movement to recover alternatives and paths not taken. As much about the present and future as it is about the past, the book proposes policies for remaking media based on democratic values for the digital age.
Introduction 1. Partisan news in the early reconstruction era: African-Americans in the vortex of political publicity 2. Economic engines of partisanship 3. Rituals of partisanship: American journalism in the gilded age 4. The two revolutions in urban newspaper economics, 1873 and 1888 5. 1896 and the political revolution in Detroit journalism Conclusion Methodological appendix.
The Commercialization of News in the Nineteenth Century traces the major transformation of newspapers from a politically based press to a commercially based press in the nineteenth century. Gerald J. Baldasty argues that broad changes in American society, the national economy, and the newspaper industry brought about this dramatic shift. Increasingly in the nineteenth century, news became a commodity valued more for its profitablility than for its role in informing or persuading the public on political issues. Newspapers started out as highly partisan adjuncts of political parties. As advertisers replaced political parties as the chief financial support of the press, they influenced newspapers in directing their content toward consumers, especially women. The results were recipes, fiction, contests, and features on everything from sports to fashion alongside more standard news about politics. Baldasty makes use of nineteenth-century materials—newspapers from throughout the era, manuscript letters from journalists and politicians, journalism and advertising trade publications, government reports—to document the changing role of the press during the period. He identifies three important phases: the partisan newspapers of the Jacksonian era (1825-1835), the transition of the press in the middle of the century, and the influence of commercialization of the news in the last two decades of the century.