Most countries have some kind of broadcasting levy to pay for public radio and television. In the UK there is the license fee to pay for the BBC.
In France, one must declare possession of a television on one’s income tax form. In Germany, every household must pay in excess of 200 euros even if it has no television, no radio and no computer. One low-paid German woman in this situation went to jail for some months for refusing to pay, as she saw it, for football celebrities.
The imposed fees are a persistent cause of grievance and controversy, reinforced in the eyes of some consumers by dissatisfaction about the quality of the programmes. Yet the alternatives of funding by advertising or by subscription are also dire with their own substantial drawbacks.
With the internet giants devouring the advertising expenditure that previously subsidised serious journalism, the economic situation of national and – perhaps more importantly – local newspapers has deteriorated sharply.
Such print media – the ‘Fourth Estate’ – fulfils a key role in democracy, shining a spotlight not only on the grand issues of the day but also on happenings in council meetings and otherwise at the local level.
They are a bulwark against fake news and rumour-mongers. But readers’ subscriptions whether for print or for access to websites can raise only a limited revenue, insufficient without advertising to cover costs.
In various countries there has been much discussion recently about the idea of a universal basic income (UBI). Except for small-scale experiments. it is unlikely to be adopted in the foreseeable future and opposition looks likely to persist for a host of reasons.
Here I want to propose something rather different: a universal digital income.
Each citizen would receive, say, a thousand pounds (euros, dollars) to be allocated annually in the manner of a ballot (securely and secretly) in portions of a quarter or a fifth to a broadcaster, a national newspaper, a local newspaper and maybe a non-commercial internet service such as Wikipedia.
This could be funded by ending tax breaks for advertising expenditure, or possibly only allowing such tax breaks for expenditure on bone fide news services.
Note that universal digital income does not involve subscriptions. Citizens receive no personal benefit from their digital income.
This would end the tiresome debates about license fees and their equivalents.
There are some issues with the concept that would need discussion. One is how and where citizens could cast their vote for their choice of broadcaster, newspaper, etc. Another is how they can be motivated to do so.
One solution to this latter problem would be to state the individual income not as a fixed annual amount but as a proportion of all individual allocations. If few people bothered to register their preferences, then those few would have a larger say in the funding of the media concerned. People who abstain in the first year or round might find themselves keen to participate later.
A further issue is how the recipient organisations are identified. Here it might be wise not to seek perfection immediately. A sensible point of departure would be to license for funding only legacy media – those newspapers and broadcasters which have been well-established for many years.
This will seem unfair to start-ups, representing an additional entry barrier to newcomers. But, away from the sports ground, there is no such thing as a perfectly level playing field. And newcomers should find the advertising market less harsh than it has recently become.
In the case of traditional broadcasters (television and radio), there might be a restriction such that only those that do not resort to commercials would be eligible. There is a fundamental question, which would take us too far, about the desirability of omnipresent advertising as we experience it today.
In the case of broadcasters it would also be possible for citizens to express a more precise preference, for example, to earmark their contribution for radio rather than television, or to a category such as sports, culture, classical or popular music.
There would inevitably be calls from some quarters to extend eligibility to other digital services, such as social media or search engines. Such calls could be resisted. The sole purpose of the universal digital income is to secure funding for constitutionally essential news, educational and cultural services in a radically changed environment and to distribute these funds transparently, without backroom deals.
Help us lay the intellectual foundations for a new radical politics. Sign up to get email notifications about anything new in this blog. See also our new book: Backlash: Saving globalisation from itself.
Paul Gregory says
Here are some afterthoughts. I wrote that, initially, candidates for receipt of the digital income would include established newspapers (local and national, i.e. normally with print editions and some internet presence). This seems unfair since it would exclude more recent but regular internet publications which have a modest readership and must count as serious. These sites often solicit small monetary contributions from their readers explaining that they do not profit from a paywall. One solution would be for them to obtain eligibility for receipt of a portion of the universal digital income (UDI) once they could demonstrate a reasonably high level of voluntary payments from a sufficiently broad readership (i.e. in contrast to large subsidies by a wealthy donor). This principle could also apply to the internet presence of think tanks, some of which are now operating, de facto, in a manner comparable to newspapers, if not with the same breadth and penetration as the regular press.
In case any misunderstanding arose, the proposal is for the UDI to be assigned in blocks of one fifth or a quarter to distinct categories (so you could not just give it all to your favourite newspaper or broadcaster). The amount suggested is large, but this is for the project to be worthwhile (no peanuts) and for citizens to understand that the trouble they go to in registering does make a difference. It must be large enough, at the least, to provide replacement income to state broadcasters in lieu of license fees.
There is a question about the periodicity of the commitments. Broadcasters and publishers would want some security in order to plan ahead. Some of the public may wish to register their enthusiasm or dislike very regularly, e.g. annually. Others will not want to be bothered more than once every few years. The citizen could be asked to state their preference, for example, this set of assignments for this year only, or this set of assignments fixed (irrevocable) for the next four years. This solution would provide for dynamism while allowing the established broadcasters/publishers a certain planning horizon.
Another matter for clarification is the mechanics of citizens assigning their UDI. I wrote “in the manner of a ballot (i.e. securely and secretly)”. Ideally, and for separate purposes, I would, eventually, like to see a network of secure electronic voting stations. Meantime, it should be sufficient for the purposes of UDI to provide each citizen with a long (unique) personal code, probably on paper (protected like a bank PIN), which they could use from their home internet connection. Since no citizen (or household) profits materially from the UDI there should not be too great a risk of abuse. Does anyone see any problem with this method?