Recommendations
The current overlap between advertising distribution and mayoral communications raises valid concerns about editorial independence. Creating a clear structural separation between these functions would help protect editorial integrity and ensure that ad spending is guided by audience reach and demographic relevance, not political interests. While the specific mechanisms for implementing this separation may vary, the underlying principle is essential and worth upholding.
This report recommends:
- Relocating MOECM to operate outside the mayor’s direct authority would create essential institutional independence. Decision-making about advertisement needs and campaign scope should remain with city agencies, but the placement and reporting requirements should be independent. Placing these functions within an independent agency or commission—similar to models used for oversight bodies like the Campaign Finance Board—would eliminate the structural potential for conflicts of interest that currently exist. This organizational change would safeguard both the integrity of the office and the independence of participating news organizations, and would address a fundamental tension in the current arrangement that has raised concerns about political influence over advertising allocations.
- Alongside structural reform, a tiered set of practice changes could be implemented immediately by any administration. These include publicly disclosing how advertising decisions are made and strengthening internal policies to increase accountability in how MOECM oversees and reports on advertising spending. Shifting more decision-making power over ad placements to advertising agencies would also promote greater independence. These adjustments would not require new legislation and could significantly improve transparency and fairness in ad distribution in the short term.
- More consistent and timely reporting. MOECM should be required to produce structured reports that include details on which community media outlets received funding and which city agencies placed advertisements, with a detailed breakdown of outlet placements. This would significantly improve accountability and provide community media publishers with actionable insights into available opportunities.
Additional recommendations gathered from community media leaders and other stakeholders that merit consideration include: establishing an independent advisory committee to serve as a watchdog over the city’s ad process; proposing narrower requirements for eligibility, including the production of original reporting on one or more communities and evidence of employing local reporters; and introducing safeguards against the concentration of ad placements to ensure diversity in ad spend. CCM takes no position on these additional recommendations.
Conclusion
The overall impact of New York City’s effort to expand community media advertising has been beneficial to the sector, and it remains a strong model for community media policy. However, its current implementation raises concerns about potential political interference. This report therefore recommends steps to ensure editorial independence, along with greater accountability and transparency.
Community media news organizations provide essential information to communities that are often underserved by mainstream media. They are a critical public good. And while public funding should never be the sole source of revenue for community media, it ought to be a key pillar of support.
Made Possible By
