This year at the University of
British Columbia, student elections were advertised and covered
by the voter-funded media (VFM) initiative, billed as ‘the
first of its kind in the world.’ Participants in the contest
promoted the election, sought to improve the quality of media
coverage, and, by extension, to imporve the quality of the democratic
process.
The driving force behind VFM was Mark Latham, who was an economist
and businessman until his retirement in 1995. For ten years
Latham, the founder of Votermedia.org,
tried to sell his idea of a voter-funded media to the corporate
world. They didn’t buy.
In 2006, Latham applied his idea to
democratic institutions instead. He gave $8000 to the
Alma Mater Society election coordinators to distribute among
“winners” of media coverage. The cash, said Latham,
was an incentive for media to fight voter apathy in the student
elections, and, in larger future elections, corruption.
Thirteen participants entered the contest this past January
to win one of Latham’s prizes. While some participants
relied on comedy and popularity to attract voters, others
offered serious coverage.
The competition successfully increased coverage for the AMS
elections, but it caused controversy as well. UBC’s
campus publication, The Ubyssey, published several
articles addressing concerns about conflicts of interest within
VFM and criticizing some of its rules. The Ubyssey
faced increased competition for readership during Latham’s
project.
In an election-time interview, Latham talked about the logic
behind his project and some of its most important aspects.
Your expertise is mostly in business.
How did you become interested in the media?
I’m a media consumer and an economist. I looked
at voting and information in corporate societies, starting
off with voting of shares, so I have studied the media and
gone to a lot of conferences where people talked about representation
in the media. My knowledge of the media comes from there.
I also read quite a few books about the media, including Journalism
in the New Millennium (edited by former UBC Journalism
School director Donna Logan).
How would you describe the VFM initiative?
It’s a way of informing the voters
and encouraging the government to do a better job on behalf
of the voters. It informs the voters better by letting them
allocate money to the media. It gives the media a better incentive
than they have now to serve the voter’s interests, especially
their interest in voting and knowing who they vote for. In
this case, I donated $8000. In the long run, the voters themselves
should fund it. For a journalist, a voter-funded budget could
mean having budget for more in-depth stories.
Might it lead to people voting for a media they already
know – usually a media that is already doing well?
In the short run, yes. In the long run, it encourages
new media to come in and build a reputation. If it runs again
and again, it will build strength, because it creates a new
funding source. It creates a new incentive to provide something
more. Here, even some individuals who have a reputation on
campus for having a particular insight might be advantaged.
A student election seems different
than a municipal or federal election. Why have you chosen
UBC?
I feel UBC is perfect. It’s big enough,
but small enough. It has a lot of the problems of a democracy;
students are disconnected, for instance, which is exactly
the problem I’m trying to solve. It’s also small
enough so I can afford it, and it’s a community with
a wide range of views. You have a school of journalism, so
there’s a pool of journalists, and there’s also
an academic interest in there. The other really big advantage
is the age of the voters. People in their twenties want to
change the world. I found there was quite an openness to this
new idea. No, I can’t really think of a better place.
In an essay you published about
the VFM, you wrote the economic structure of the media was
a cause of voter apathy. Could you develop that thought for
me?
Voters don’t have an incentive to
pay the media. Even though, as a group, we vote for better
information, as an individual, I would personally not pay
money from my pocket to buy information, because I would be
helping the community, not myself. The media tend to serve
more sensationalism, fashion, etc. than information, because
they get funding from advertising and commercials. A lot of
subjects that require a lot of time and energy won’t
attract a lot of viewers or readers. To caricature me [as
a representative of the public] - I want to spend most of
my year looking at Britney Spears. Before an election, I want
to spend 15 minutes that are boring to make sure I can cast
my vote, because I know that it matters. We really need this
information that is totally boring, but we only want to spend
15 minutes looking at it. I want to increase that coverage.
Are you afraid of conflicts of interests
on the VFM? [Some of the VFM contestants were also involved
in the AMS council.]
I designed the basic idea, but I don’t
set the rules. I thought a lot about that - the VFM is all
about conflicts of interest and reducing them. I think VFM
will police itself. People digging up conflicts of interest
are about the best protection we have. Therefore, my design
says even electoral candidates can have their own media outlet.
I do care about conflicts of interest, but the best protection
is having other media monitor it.
So more coverage is better coverage?
If you have well-motivated candidates, yes.
It would be a better protection than having the government
control the media.
How would you feel if a joke candidate
wins?
Of course I’d like my donated
money to go for something that helped the voters. But even
if some money is wasted that way, I think it will be a success
if there’s a substantial amount of positive, successful
coverage and a small amount of that joke stuff. If all the
money were going to joke media, I would consider it a failure.
I forecast that they would vote for helpful media, but I might
be wrong. Nobody knows what’s going to happen, that’s
why it’s so interesting. My hope is that it’s
going to be successful and people will say that this was useful
for UBC voters. But overall, I think it is working, we have
got a better coverage than we’ve ever had so far.