The Honorable Henry Waxman is Representative of the 30th Congressional District in California and Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The following is an excerpt of his remarks delivered at the Federal Trade Commission’s “News Media Workshop” held on December 1 and 2, 2009:

A vigorous free press and a vigorous democracy have been inextricably linked. We are here today because of these bonds and what they mean. This is why this conference is so important. We cannot risk the loss of an informed public and all that means because of a “market failure.”

With so much at stake, there have been numerous responses inside and outside this industry.

They have focused on the following areas:

1. The establishment of new legal or tax structures for publishers that can cushion the blow by permitting media companies to have the option of choosing other structures, such as non-profit status, that would remove the pressures faced by publicly listed companies.
2. More philanthropic support for media outlets.
3. Examination of the antitrust laws and whether changing them might be of assistance.
4. Review of the cross media laws and other ownership restrictions that may constrain the commercial vitality of the industry.
5. The exploration of new sources of journalism, from universities operating news organizations, to new, hyper local web-based journalism enterprises to deliver local news and information and reporting.
6. The prospect of public funding for quality journalism as a means to preserve a critical mass of resources and assets devoted to public media. This has been articulated by Len Downie and Michael Schudson, in their report commissioned by Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, the Free Press organization, and others.

In 1967, Congress made the judgment that public funding for radio and television was important because it would ensure the provision of content deemed valuable in the public interest to serve large societal goals – content that the market would be unable to produce without some government support.

Some argue that this model, applied to media publishers, could preserve and maintain key functions of modern journalism – investigative reporting, foreign news bureaus, wide-ranging coverage of the arts, culture, science and social trends – by cushioning the economic squeeze publishers are facing.

Others have raised red flags about the dangers of government support of the press. I have an open mind on all the above proposals.

In the face of continuing closures of mastheads across the country, I see every reason to discuss them.

As this vital discussion proceeds, I would like to suggest several criteria for evaluating any proposed response:

First, there needs to be a consensus within the media industry and the larger community it serves that the proposal is in the public interest. Congress can’t impose a solution to this issue. It needs to emerge from a consensus-building process involving the industry and the larger public.

Second, these initiatives require bipartisan support – vigorous endorsement from both sides of the aisle.

Those advocating for public funding need to address additional questions. They need to articulate the scope of such support, in terms of the activities to be supported and the dollars required. They need to respond to the concern that government support of journalism would lead to government control of content. And they need to explain the source of revenues.

The Internet is replacing the public square as the place where people in cities and towns across America go every day to absorb news and information and to reflect on issues and their meaning for our lives.

The atomization of content has resulted in the fragmentation of audiences, so that the commercial basis to support a critical mass of authoritative and informed news and information is melting away.

And this is creating a public policy issue of profound import for our future.