Voter-Funded Media: Past, Present and Future

In recent years, the role of voter-funded media on campus, particularly during AMS elections, has increased manifold. What began as an experiment in democracy has become taken for granted - so let's take a look at the growing pains of Mark Latham's model, where we stand right now and what direction we're headed towards (it's one that includes AMS Gossip Guy).

Voter-Funded Media, briefly, is a model wherein voters fund media to report on politics (rather than having special interest groups report on politics). As a result, the overall plan is to have better quality media as a result of voters directly funding them. Politicos get good coverage, voters get (relatively) unbiased and high-quality reporting and the media don't have to starve to death in cardboard houses. It's an everybody-wins situation.

The VFM model was first unleashed upon UBC in January 2007 with a $100 entry fee but it had its beginnings much earlier on, in 2006, when Mark Latham first approached several AMS insiders, including then-VP external, Ian Pattillo. The AMS evidently liked the idea so much that they ironed out the kinks and approved the VFM competition in November 2006. Mark devotes plentiful coverage on his blog to this first implementation of VFM and it really shows the ways in which VFM came to be today.

On an interesting sidenote, Mark loosely defines four types of voters:

1. Very busy; willing to spend only a small amount of time to fulfill the community service of becoming informed enough to vote.
2. Might spend more time becoming politically informed if it's interesting or entertaining.
3. Willing to do some checking of political information.
4. Really into politics and media (this group includes the media and political candidates).

He then suggests that different media, with different specialties, can fulfill the needs of every demographic - but not one sole media can possibly attract and retain all four types of voters. I really think Mark was ahead of his time here as I specifically began the UBC Spectator as an acknowledgement of a stagnation in the current VFM world as well as to fulfill a nascent niche where students wanted information as well as entertainment. (But don't consider us the Perez Hilton of the UBC VFM candidates!)

But I digress. The results in 2007 were unsurprising, with The Underground, snagging first prize. Even Mark had to admit that well-known publications, particularly publications that had existed in print well before VFM, had an edge in this contest.

Mark also had some other comments about what worked and what didn't work in terms of entrants in the VFM contest. He noticed four (he really likes the number four) evaluative metrics that were likely to predict success - name (fame or infamy), serious (quality and quantity of serious news), fun (quality and quantity of fun content) and non-web (non-web, print material availability). In his opinion, name > serious > non-web > fun.

Talks began for a year-round model for VFM, after the stunning successes of 2007, as well as running it again in 2008. Mark gave his input to the UBC elections committee and, as it turns out, SFU and Kwantlen joined in on the VFM fun. Mark gives an insightful compare/contrast between implementations of VFM at UBC and SFU on his blog.

After another great run, VFM became the darling of Elections Committee and plans were made and put into action to implement VFM year-round. This culminated in the VoterMedia contest which appeared to have been reasonably successful if not well known.

Finally, VFM 2009 rolled around and a whole slew of new candidates signed up (The UBC Spectator, AMS Gossip Guy, UBC Student Media, etc.) as well as well-established heavyweights (UBC Insiders, Devil's Advocate, The Knoll, etc.). This year's competition proves to be fierce and exciting as every media outlet appears to be appealing to a different niche and, therefore, working in concert to promote greater voter efficacy and participation.

We're getting closer and closer to achieving Mark Latham's vision (though we aren't quite there yet in my opinion), and it can only get more exciting from here. Candidates now take VFM seriously - an endorsement or disendorsement is actually meaningful in terms of votes. If voters are not busy writing or blogging about the elections, then at least they are reading about pertinent student issues.

I see VFM expanding exponentially over the next few years and, as times change, I expect to see the landscape of media outlets change. At UBC Insiders, already, they've gone through a few bloggers and their torch continues to be passed down. The Radical Beer Tribune has changed radically (haha I'm so witty!) from its first entry into VFM and I don't expect that change to be uncharacteristic as the Radical Beer Faction inducts helpless first years into its inner echelons.

As a final digression, I'm very pleased to be participating in this year's VFM - I'm surprised that I've been closely adhering to Mark's advice for media, without having read them beforehand. If not the best newcomer, I like to imagine the UBC Spectator as a strong competitor and I hope to continue this blog long after AMS elections are over.

Good luck to all the other media outlets out there and thank to voters who make informed votes!