Victor Pickard

The early US communication field took root during the 1930s and ‘40s upon a rapidly shifting ideological terrain. These years saw several critical threads of communication research rise and fall, while other less critical approaches ascended to become the dominant paradigm of communication research, emphasizing social science methods that consistently found only limited media effects.

Elementary democratic theory holds that self-governance requires a free—and, by implication, a functional—press system. However, today, much of the American press infrastructure is being dismantled by a deeply systemic market failure, with little hope for self-correction. While significant democratic deficits have always existed in American journalism, it is becoming glaringly obvious that a purely commercial press system cannot provide for a multiracial democratic society’s basic information and communication needs.

The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) provides $42.45 billion in grant funding to states via the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program (BEAD). IIJA also underscores that any state receiving these funds may not exclude local governments from applying to use these funds to build their own broadband networks.

The internet is facing multiple crises. From algorithmically fueled misinformation on Facebook to communities abandoned by large internet service providers, the tension between digital monopolies’ profit interests and the public interest is glaringly evident. Consensus is growing that the internet we have is not the internet that we want or need. In recent years, a diverse array of thinkers has begun to coalesce around bold ideas for radically democratizing the internet—from the pipes that connect us to the internet to the platforms that distribute news and information.

Internet service providers’ discriminatory underinvestment in broadband infrastructure and services—referred to as “digital redlining” for disproportionately affecting low-income communities of color—is drawing increased public scrutiny, including from policymakers.

The early broadcast era and our current platform era bear some striking resemblances, but one parallel looms large: In the 1940s, we lost a key battle to build a potentially liberating and wondrous medium—and we are on the cusp of doing so again. Then as now, commercial operators defined the terms by which we could use our core communication and information infrastructures. Democratic oversight, public alternatives, and social responsibilities were kept to a minimum. Democratic societies must now fight to prevent this from happening again.

President Biden’s proposal to expand high-speed Internet access as part of his infrastructure bill affirms that broadband is an essential public service. It embraces the government’s responsibility to counteract the market’s failure to provide adequate Internet access to millions of Americans. By prioritizing universal service, it offers a glimpse of what a more democratic Internet might look like.

Tens of thousands of journalists are losing their jobs, newspaper chains are going under, and vulture capitalists are picking over the remains. We need a news bailout — but one that overhauls the existing corporate model and pushes the media to put the public before profits. Journalism needs more than just stimulus; it needs a major structural overhaul. And it requires permanent and public support.

States and local governments may be able to mandate their own network neutrality rules. Governors in six states – HI, MT, NJ, NY, RI, and VT – have already signed executive orders enforcing net neutrality by prohibiting state agencies from doing business with internet service providers that limit customers’ online access. Four states have passed their own laws requiring internet companies to treat all online content equally: CA, OR, WA, and VT.

"Our media is precious. It’s how, outside of our strictly personal spheres, we speak to each other, inform each other, learn from each other, entertain each other, increasingly how we govern ourselves." With these words, Michael Copps opened a public hearing on media ownership rules. The hearing was not in Washington, DC, but Chicago, Illinois. Copps was not a local official, but a commissioner at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC).