Side-by-side analysis of what each approach would mean for local news, journalist protections, platform regulation, and the information landscape that democracy depends on.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page compares media and press freedom approaches across parties — but there's much more to explore.
American journalism is in crisis — and it is not the crisis either party talks about. Since 2005, more than 2,900 newspapers have closed, leaving over 1,800 communities as "news deserts" with no dedicated local coverage. Newsroom employment has fallen by 60%. Meanwhile, trust in media has dropped to historic lows, not because journalists became less competent, but because the economic model that supported local accountability journalism collapsed when advertising revenue migrated to Google and Facebook. The platforms that destroyed local news now serve as the primary information source for millions of Americans — with no journalistic standards, no editorial accountability, and algorithms that prioritize engagement over accuracy.
The three major approaches to media policy address different aspects of this crisis. Democrats focus on platform regulation and public media funding. Republicans focus on combating what they see as media bias and protecting conservative speech online. The Common Good Party addresses the structural crisis at its root: rebuilding the local news infrastructure that democracy requires, protecting journalist independence, regulating platform algorithms without censoring content, and ensuring every American has access to reliable, local, accountable journalism.
This page breaks down each approach honestly — what it gets right, what it misses, and what it would actually mean for the information landscape that self-governance depends on. No spin, no talking points, just the policy.
How the three approaches stack up on the issues that matter most to press freedom and media policy.
| Issue | Democrats | Republicans | Common Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| Local news support | Tax credits for newsrooms | No federal role | Local News Fund, platform-funded |
| Public media funding | Maintain CPB funding | Defund PBS/NPR | Increase, independent governance |
| Tech platform regulation | Regulate content, privacy laws | Prevent "censorship" of conservatives | Algorithm transparency, data privacy |
| Shield laws | Support federal shield law | Mixed — some support, some oppose | Strong federal shield, narrow exceptions |
| Media consolidation | Oppose mergers, some enforcement | Deregulate ownership rules | Enforce antitrust, local ownership rules |
| Section 230 | Narrow for harmful content | Narrow to prevent moderation | Reform: transparency + amplification liability |
| Journalist protections | Support, but mixed record | Hostile to "mainstream media" | Full protections, anti-SLAPP federal law |
| Media literacy | Support education programs | Oppose federal curriculum | K-12 curriculum, public campaigns |
| Press access | Generally supportive | Restrict, revoke credentials | Codify access rights, FOIA reform |
| Foreign propaganda | Counter-disinformation programs | Selective concern (Russia vs. others) | Transparency mandates, origin labeling |
Sources: Pew Research Center, Northwestern Medill Local News Initiative, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, party platform documents. See the compact comparison view for a quick side-by-side summary.
The Democratic approach to media policy centers on platform regulation, public media funding, and journalist protections. Key proposals include maintaining and modestly increasing funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, supporting tax credits for local newsroom employment, pursuing privacy legislation that limits data-driven targeted advertising, narrowing Section 230 immunity to compel platforms to remove harmful content, supporting a federal shield law, and funding counter-disinformation programs. Democrats have also supported the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, which would allow news publishers to collectively negotiate with platforms for fair compensation.
Democrats correctly identify that the collapse of local news is a structural threat to democracy, not just a market adjustment. Platform regulation is necessary — Google and Meta captured the advertising revenue that once supported local journalism while bearing none of the costs of producing it. Privacy legislation that limits surveillance advertising would address the perverse incentives driving algorithmic manipulation. Supporting public media is consistent with the approach of every peer democracy — the US spends approximately $1.40 per capita on public media compared to $85 in the UK and $70 in Canada. Democrats have also been generally supportive of journalist access and shield law protections.
The Democratic approach to content regulation risks government overreach. When politicians decide what constitutes "harmful content" or "disinformation," the potential for abuse is significant — and both parties have demonstrated willingness to pressure platforms to suppress content they dislike. The Obama administration pursued more leak investigations under the Espionage Act than all previous administrations combined, and surveilled journalists' phone records and emails. Democrats' commitment to press freedom has not always matched their rhetoric. Tax credits for newsroom employment are helpful but woefully insufficient to address a crisis that has already eliminated tens of thousands of journalism jobs and closed nearly 3,000 newspapers.
For more on the media landscape, see the full media & press freedom explainer.
The Republican approach to media policy centers on combating perceived media bias and preventing what they characterize as censorship of conservative viewpoints on social media platforms. Key proposals include defunding PBS and NPR, weakening libel protections to make it easier to sue media outlets (the "opening up libel laws" proposal), narrowing Section 230 to prevent platforms from moderating content they define as political speech, deregulating media ownership rules to allow greater consolidation, and restricting journalist access to government officials and events. Republicans have also supported revoking press credentials for outlets they consider hostile.
Republicans are correct that platform moderation decisions raise legitimate concerns about speech and fairness, particularly when a handful of companies control the primary channels of public discourse. Concerns about ideological uniformity in major newsrooms are not entirely unfounded — Pew research shows that journalists are significantly more likely to identify as liberal than the general public. The principle that government should not be in the business of deciding what is true or false is sound, even if Republicans apply it selectively. Questioning the role of government-funded media in a free press ecosystem is a legitimate debate to have.
The Republican approach to media is fundamentally contradictory. It claims to defend free speech while seeking to punish media outlets for unfavorable coverage, restrict journalist access, weaken the legal protections that allow journalism to function, and use government power to coerce platforms into hosting content they've chosen to remove. Defunding PBS and NPR — which provide critical news coverage in rural communities that commercial media has abandoned — would disproportionately harm the conservative-leaning communities Republicans claim to represent.
"Opening up libel laws" would make it easier for powerful people and corporations to sue journalists into silence — the Sullivan standard exists specifically to protect the press from retaliatory lawsuits by public officials. Deregulating media ownership accelerates the consolidation that has already destroyed local news in hundreds of communities. The "anti-censorship" position on Section 230 would actually prohibit private companies from exercising editorial judgment — which is itself a form of compelled speech that the First Amendment prohibits. You cannot defend free speech by forcing companies to publish content they don't want to publish.
For a deeper analysis of the platform regulation debate, see our media & press freedom explainer.
The Common Good Party treats journalism as infrastructure for democracy — not a market commodity that can be left to the forces that destroyed it. We propose a Local News Fund financed by a small tax on targeted digital advertising revenue from platforms exceeding $1 billion in annual ad revenue, administered by an independent board with no government editorial authority. We increase public media funding to $10 per capita (still far below peer nations) with strengthened editorial independence. We reform Section 230 to require algorithmic transparency and create liability for algorithmic amplification of content platforms know to be false — without touching immunity for good-faith moderation. We pass a strong federal shield law, a federal anti- SLAPP statute to protect journalists from retaliatory lawsuits, and comprehensive FOIA reform. We enforce antitrust law against media consolidation and prevent hedge fund strip-mining of local newsrooms. And we fund K-12 media literacy education so the next generation can navigate the information landscape critically.
Unlike the Democratic approach, the CGP plan addresses the structural collapse of local news at scale rather than offering incremental tax credits. It also draws a clear line against government content regulation — the government should never decide what is true or false. Unlike the Republican approach, the CGP plan does not weaponize media policy against unfavorable coverage or seek to weaken the legal protections that journalism requires. The CGP framework is based on a simple principle: a self-governing society requires an informed citizenry, and an informed citizenry requires a functioning press. That press has collapsed. Rebuilding it is as much a public good as roads or schools.
Every peer democracy invests significantly more in public and local journalism than the United States — and every one has a more informed citizenry and higher trust in media. The BBC, CBC, ABC (Australia), NHK (Japan), and ARD/ZDF (Germany) all operate on the publicly-funded, editorially-independent model the CGP proposes. None of these countries have state-controlled media — they have publicly funded, independently governed media that provides high-quality journalism as a public service.
The evidence on local news is equally clear. Research from Duke, Northwestern, and Notre Dame consistently shows that communities with robust local news have higher voter turnout, lower corruption, better-informed citizens, and lower municipal borrowing costs. When local news dies, democracy suffers. The market will not save local journalism — the market killed it. Public investment is the only proven solution.
Policy is abstract. People's lives are not. Here's what the three approaches would look like for real Americans navigating the information landscape right now.
Want to explore how the CGP plan rebuilds the information infrastructure democracy requires? Read the full policy breakdown.
Read the Full Media PolicyCommon questions about how the three approaches compare on media and press freedom.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full media & press freedom explainer or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Dive deeper into media and press freedom policy with these pages.
Nearly 3,000 newsrooms have closed. Nobody is watching the people who run your town. Read the full plan and see what rebuilding local journalism actually looks like.
Paid for by The Common Good Party (thecommongoodparty.com) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.