Media

State pays newspapers cash for local journalism

By on • ( 27 Comments )

Vermont puts public money Into local journalism — first test of government support for the press?

By Guy Page

Vermont took a notable step into the territory of publicly funded journalism this week, awarding $100,000 in state- and foundation-backed grants to 16 local news outlets.

Supporters say the initiative — the Local Civic Journalism Awards — is a pragmatic response to the collapse of the local news economy. Skeptics warn it edges government closer to the newsroom door than many journalists are comfortable with.

The awards, administered by the Vermont Secretary of State’s Office and paid for through a combination of state budget funds and philanthropic dollars, provide either $5,000 or $10,000 to small, mostly locally owned news organizations.

The panelists opted to award $10,000 to four news organizations that have particularly distinguished themselves in recent years by reimagining the way they foster civic engagement in their respective communities and sustain themselves for the future. They include:

The panel also chose to award $5,000 to a dozen news organizations that provide essential coverage to their communities. They include: 

For a state with one of the country’s smallest populations and one of the most fragile media ecosystems, the move is being framed as both experimental and urgent. A generation of shrinking newsrooms, shuttered weeklies, and declining ad revenue has pushed Vermont — as in most states — into a chronic shortage of reporters. That vacuum has increasingly left town budgets, school boards, local police, and state agencies operating with far less scrutiny than a decade ago.

The idea emerged from Sen. Andrew Perchlik, who secured $50,000 in the Fiscal Year 2026 budget. The Vermont Community Foundation matched it through Press Forward Vermont, reflecting a growing national philanthropic trend aimed at rescuing local news.

Secretary of State Sarah Copeland Hanzas framed the partnership as an investment in civic health, arguing that local democracy cannot function without access to “trustworthy, transparent” information. The awards, she said, are intended to support existing journalism rather than shape it — a critical distinction in a country where the First Amendment places strong guardrails around government interaction with the press.

Guardrails against political influence?

That sensitivity explains the program’s most significant structural feature: the creation of an independent, third-party selection panel run by the University of Vermont’s Center for Community News. Journalists, academics, and media experts — none from organizations eligible for funding — evaluated applications and made the final decisions.

This design is meant to insulate the awards from political pressure. It also acknowledges a tension baked into the model: The same state government that journalists cover is now helping determine which outlets keep their lights on.

Notably, the panel avoided awarding any statewide political newsrooms, focusing instead on hyperlocal outlets whose work is typically less partisan and more community-service-oriented.

Modest dollar amount, outsized symbolism

The money itself is small — $10,000 is unlikely to add a full reporting position, and $5,000 may only cover a few months of freelance work or essential operating expenses. But for many tiny Vermont newsrooms running on shoestring budgets, even modest support can be meaningful.

The awards also function as a public endorsement of the value of community journalism at a moment when trust in media remains polarized and fragile.

Paul Heintz of the Center for Community News acknowledged both the good news and the underlying alarm: Vermont has strong journalism, but much of it remains “struggling to stay afloat.”

As Vermont experiments with a public–private hybrid, other states are watching. If the program shows measurable benefits — more reporting, stronger civic engagement, better training pipelines — it could be expanded. If it raises concerns about conflicts of interest, it may be redesigned, or quietly abandoned.

Critics, including some press-freedom advocates nationwide, have historically warned that any government funding, even indirect, risks gradually eroding editorial independence. Supporters counter that the alternative — letting the market finish off small-town journalism — is more dangerous.

The coming year will provide the first evidence of which view prevails.

The bottom line

This inaugural round is small in dollars but large in precedent. Vermont is testing whether government can help sustain journalism without influencing it — a delicate balance likely to shape not just future policy, but public trust.

Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Categories: Media

27 replies »

    • who in Vermont was a major supporter of Venezuala?
      Who helped mamdani in NYC……..

      Is there a connection???

      How quickly does the corruption come to Vermont, the above video is amazing, would be a good feature for VDC….

    • Hey Guy…….wonder what Bernie Sanders would say about this video????? Can you ask him? lol….can I be there when you do?

    • I challenge Lara Logan to do a broadcast without her boobs hoisted up on full display like a controlled opposition honeypot harlot. The clip of her on a private jet with Juan O’Savin (aka Wayne the insurance adjuster turned operative) was quite an exhibition. Perhaps the 80/20 rule? 80 percent possibly true with 20% bs added to keep the populace bamboozled.

  4. State tax dollars fill hole left by withdrawal of federal support of NPR
    Headline fixed.
    Government has no business paying for journalisiming unless it’s to control what gets disseminated.

  5. The whole idea behind the long-overdue defunding of public radio/television is that the public treasury should not be funding journalism, as it is too subject to bias and favoritism. EVERY issue has the public on one side or the other and it should be left to the power of the market and capitalist principles to finance news and information sources. There is a total muddying and overlap between news and opinion, with CNN, Fox News and MSNBC being the best examples of who cannot keep them separate. People generally want to hear credible truth and can mostly discern what is propaganda so let the ratings decide who survives and stop subsidizing garbage information. Most of those small town and regional are run by moonbats and they select contributors and twist their event coverage based on their lefty biases. Online it is the same situation, so NO public funding should go to Front Porch Forum either unless they stick to lost dogs and junk for sale or giveaway.

    • Front Porch Forum is a joke… don’t you dare say something about anything they deem a conspiracy; you will be tossed to the curb and not allowed on their site.

  6. To suggest that our local paper, The Valley Reporter is not biased…….is complete lunacy. Love the people there and know them well, but they are NOT unbiased, perhaps one of the most left leaning papers in the state.

    Not familiar with the others….

  7. So much gor independent journalism. Who’s paying for this incredibly bad idea.

    • Apparently all Vermonters who pay taxes are footing the bill for this propaganda machine…

  8. The government doesnt want ro influence journalism, but they won’t give any money to political news reporting. So what is that? That’s controlling the content. This is communism at its finest.

    • Is the United States government’s $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock an example of communism?

      No, the United States government’s $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock is not an example of communism. This transaction represents a targeted, passive equity stake in a private corporation as part of a bipartisan industrial policy to enhance domestic semiconductor production, not the abolition of private property or collective ownership central to communist ideology. It occurs within a capitalist framework where Intel remains a publicly traded company on a competitive market, with the government holding a minority (9.9%) non-controlling interest.

      Context of the Investment
      Announced on August 22, 2025, under the Trump administration, the deal converts $5.7 billion in remaining CHIPS and Science Act grants (from the 2022 bipartisan law) and $3.2 billion from the Department of Defense’s Secure Enclave program into a purchase of 433.3 million newly issued shares at $20.47 each, totaling $8.9 billion. This builds on Intel’s prior $2.2 billion in CHIPS funding, bringing total U.S. support to $11.1 billion, aimed at funding over $100 billion in factory expansions in Arizona, Ohio, and elsewhere to reduce reliance on foreign chips amid national security concerns. The stake is explicitly passive—no board seats, governance rights, or operational control—and Intel retains full autonomy in its business decisions. This mirrors equity investments by democratic governments worldwide (e.g., France’s stake in Renault or Singapore’s in Temasek-backed firms) to spur innovation without nationalizing industries.

      Why It Might Seem Communist-Like (But Isn’t)
      Skeptics, including some conservatives, have criticized it as “socialism” or undue government meddling, fearing cronyism or taxpayer risk (e.g., Intel’s recent losses). However, it’s funded by repurposed grants, not new taxes, and aims for economic returns—shares are already valued higher (up ~6% post-announcement). True communist regimes (e.g., Cuba’s full nationalization of industries) involve coercive takeover, not minority stakes in thriving markets. Labeling this communism overlooks the U.S.’s enduring private enterprise system, where such policies enhance competitiveness without upending it.

      In essence, this is pragmatic industrial strategy in a capitalist democracy, not ideological communism. Misapplying the term risks diminishing its (Communism’s) historical weight, tied to regimes that stifle innovation through over-centralization.

    • Does This Investment “Open the Door” for Insider Trading?

      In theory, no—existing laws close the door by making such trading illegal. The STOCK Act directly addresses scenarios like this: A Commerce Department official with advance knowledge of the $8.9 billion equity deal (e.g., during 2025 negotiations) could not legally buy/sell Intel shares or tip others before public announcement, as it would breach their duty regarding MNPI. Courts have assumed government officials hold such duties, and violations could lead to SEC/DOJ prosecution, disgorgement, fines, or ethics probes.

      However, in practice, it could create vulnerabilities:

      Prior Knowledge Risks: Negotiations (e.g., August 2025 amendments) involve nonpublic details that could move Intel’s stock (which rallied ~9% on initial equity rumors). Officials with “prior knowledge” might face temptation, especially if enforcement lags—historical data shows minimal prosecutions despite disclosures.

      Historical Precedents: During CHIPS Act passage (2022), trades in chip stocks (e.g., Nvidia) by lawmakers like Nancy Pelosi raised scrutiny, prompting calls for hearings on insider trading bans. No charges resulted, but it highlighted conflicts where officials oversee sectors they invest in.

      Equity Twist: The government’s 9.9% stake adds complexity—officials might indirectly benefit via pensions/taxpayer ties, but personal trading remains barred. Critics argue the deal’s opacity (e.g., “funny money” restructuring of existing funds) amplifies perceptions of favoritism.

      Enforcement Gaps: Studies (2012–2020) found no abnormal returns from officials’ trades, suggesting either compliance or undetected issues. Fines are nominal ($200+), and self-policing by ethics committees limits rigor.

      Overall, the investment doesn’t legally enable insider trading—it’s prohibited—but it underscores ongoing debates about enforcement. Bipartisan pushes for bans (e.g., prohibiting officials/spouses from holding individual stocks) aim to eliminate the “door” entirely, reflecting public distrust in a system where officials trade ~$315 million in assets amid policy influence. For now, the risk lies more in ethical lapses than legal openings.

  10. The more meddling, the more bribes taken (described as grants, or rather, grifts,) the more the principalities take control over what used to be known as journalism. Whether it be PBS, NPR, CBS, MSLSD, CNN, AP, or the social media influencers compensated by foreign and domestic governments; what is real and what is true is only known to those who control it – five eyes or the seven heads with ten horns.

    VDC is one that is operating with integrity and ethics. An open forum and telling the stories; good, bad and neutral is actual journalism. Note VDC is not considered worthy of a State/taxpayer funded pat on the head speaks volumes. All the publications listed, I pass on and consider them paid operatives.

    There used to be sustaining revenue through advertising and classifieds. When corporations or businesses are swayed by government mandated social engineering, their support and bottom lines are part and parcel of the beast system. Convid-19 a prime example – the wake up call many ignored.

  11. Charly Dickerson:

    Is government paying for press an “abridgement of the freedom of the press”, or “restrained” as prohibited by the US Constitution and Vermont’s Constitution. Any time the government pays for, or subsidizes journalism, this right is chipped away. All journalists should beware or be wary; and those taking money from taxpayers should be ashamed!

  12. This is wrong on so many levels, the press will soon learn don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

  13. Aren’t most of these media outlets privately owned? Do some must have a problem with these ‘government handouts’?