​The news industry has had a rough go of it in recent years. While some news outlets are able to sustain themselves on a healthy dose of subscriptions and advertising revenues, many digital newsrooms and local outlets have suffered. Quality reporting at the state and local levels is particularly vulnerable. News deserts, areas without any local newsrooms, are widespread throughout the country. If implemented, a Universal Basic Income (UBI), what is in essence a universal supplemental income program or “Social Security for All,” may be the policy to help revive local reporting.

Proponents of UBI often remark that such a policy would help to establish a baseline of economic security in a world of underemployment, the gig/service economy, and wage stagnation. If this argument proves true, a UBI may also serve to allow local journalists and newsrooms to sustain themselves despite economic uncertainty, transforming news deserts into fertile ground for local reporting.

To clarify, I am not referring to a UBI or a wage subsidy specifically for journalists or a scheme like the UK’s BBC. Such a system might lead to punitive actions being taken against journalists for reporting that government officials do not like. I am speaking more broadly about how a UBI may affect journalists.

It is worth noting that UBI gives many people hesitation. UBI is not well-studied, but efforts are underway to better understand its potential impacts. Preliminary work out of the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Social Policy & Practice shows promising results.

​This is not to say that a UBI is the only answer to the financial problems the press faces. Outlets across the country are experimenting with a number of different models. For example, Civil has launched a journalism network built on blockchain technology and Civil’s proprietary cryptocurrency, CVL tokens. As interesting an idea as this is, I find it hard to believe that this model will be sustainable given that the public’s understanding of blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies is limited. In Academical’s interview with the Virginia Mercury’s Editor-in-Chief Robert Zullo, we discussed how their outlet operates without revenue, at least for the time being, by relying on investor dollars.

​In speaking about the financial conditions of the press, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist James Risen said,

​It is possible that a UBI will provide individual reporters and journalistic institutions the necessary strength to thrive.

The nearly 2,000 year old philosophical question “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” loosely translates to, “Who watches the watchmen?” Underpinning the question are the matters of power and oversight. The United States Constitution tackles this question in two ways.

First, the government is structured such that we have a separation of powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government. In theory, this system allows for each of the respective branches to provide checks and balances on the other two, i.e., oversight.

Second, the first amendment establishes that the government make no law abridging the freedom of the press. It is incumbent upon the press to report on news, facts, policy and politics, and, most important of all, to provide additional government oversight. Journalists police the police, oversee the overseers, and hold power to account. The press is called the fourth branch of government for good reason; it serves a role that, in many cases, the government cannot and should not reasonably be expected to serve itself.

​Voice of America aside, this country does not have a state-run media operation and I see no reason to believe that one will soon be established on the domestic front. As terrifying as that sort of propaganda machine would be, equally terrifying is the loss of local press outlets across the country. As news deserts become more prevalent, necessary journalism is suffocated out of existence and oversight dwindles. A UBI may provide much needed oxygen.

The views expressed above are solely the author's and are not endorsed by the Virginia Policy Review, The Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy, or the University of Virginia. Although this organization has members who are University of Virginia students and may have University employees associated or engaged in its activities and affairs, the organization is not a part of or an agency of the University. It is a separate and independent organization which is responsible for and manages its own activities and affairs. The University does not direct, supervise or control the organization and is not responsible for the organization’s contracts, acts, or omissions.

Nicolás Maduro is an illegitimate president. He retained office through a sham election and has abused his powers in the process of creating a humanitarian crisis in Venezuela. Leaders across the political spectrum in the United States and beyond have recognized Juan Guaidó as the true president of the nation in chaos.
 
One of the leaders recognizing Guaidó is President Donald Trump. President Trump and his administration have been consistent and forceful on the situation in Venezuela. Even before European countries sided with Guaidó, Vice President Pence delivered a message of support to the Venezuelan people, promising that the United States would stand with them “until Democracy is restored” and their “birthright of Libertad” is reclaimed. The Administration has taken a stand on the right side of history, choosing the oppressed over the autocrat, precious freedom over brutal tyranny.
 
For an administration that has been resoundingly criticized for a number of foreign policy missteps, Venezuela seems like an exception. The Trump Administration’s course of action has been the correct one. So, how worthy are they of our praise? The answer is complicated, but the reality is clear: if you are only concerned about human rights when it is politically expedient, then you aren’t actually concerned about human rights.

​Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is responsible for the dismembering of a journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, and a war in Yemen that has killed so many innocent people that the United Nations can no longer keep an accurate count. However, President Trump has defended the Crown Prince at every turn.
 
Vladimir Putin has his political opponents imprisoned and killed, denies basic rights to minorities, and props up the Assad regime in Syria that gassed its own people. However, President Trump heaps praise on Putin and sides with him over the U.S. intelligence community.
 
In North Korea, Kim Jong Un tortures, murders, and starves his own people, yet President Trump has said he and Kim “fell in love.”
 
In short, President Trump does not care about human rights. His narrow focus on putting “America First” is a misguided mentality that reflects a misunderstanding about foreign policy. In his final book, The Restless Wave, John McCain wrote:

​The universal application of a human rights framework to world affairs is not only morally just, it also advances the cause of American security. There is no American interest more sacred than defending our founding idea, that all Men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. President Trump has done that in Venezuela. Now, the administration must stand up for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in Saudi Arabia, Russia, North Korea, and everywhere else that freedom is threatened, now and always.

If you were somehow unaware, Ralph Northam, the Governor of Virginia, came under fire this week after the conservative website Big League Politics reported a racist photo being displayed on the Governor’s Eastern Virginia Medical School yearbook page. The photo, which shows one person in blackface and one person in Ku Klux Klan robes (very presumably Northam and a friend), immediately prompted widespread calls for his resignation nationwide. Almost everyone from the Virginia Democratic and Republican Parties to Donald Trump and several democrats running for president have demanded that Northam step down. But, despite my personal disgust with the photo, my initial reaction was that he shouldn’t resign.

When I saw the photo, the first thing I thought of was a project I did for my AP US History class at the end of my junior year of high school. Two weeks before the exam, our teacher asked my class to prepare a short presentation on an official AP term which we had not yet had the opportunity to cover. For my project, I chose the term “minstrel shows” because, despite not really knowing what they were, I knew that they were somehow connected to African American history. I was (obviously) appalled by my research. And though I had always known that blackface was problematic, I wasn’t able to fully grasp the historical context and significance until I did that project.

Unfortunately, due to a combo of snow days and poor planning by my teacher, I never actually presented my findings to the rest of the class. Instead (and pretty ironically), we spent that hour-long class period that had been allocated for the presentations going over the entirety of African American history since the end of Reconstruction. I am not exaggerating. In a day, we went from the rise of Jim Crow to A. Philip Randolph to Brown v Board of Education to the Black Power movements. And that was the only time we ever discussed such matters in the class.

While it made me a little mad that I had spent a considerable amount of time preparing for the presentation and wouldn’t be able to teach my classmates about minstrel shows, I was infuriated by the fact that we just skimmed over such an important aspect of our history. I was infuriated by the fact that we considered such a critical aspect of our history as separate and unrelated to the rise of American on the world stage: two World Wars, the Great Depression, the Cold War, the resurgence of conservatism, etc.

This all being said, most Americans probably have had much less of an exposure to the other side, the African American side, of our history. And, as a result, they probably think that this aspect of our history was much and is much less important and influential than it actually is. I was fortunate enough to have gone to high school in one of the most progressive counties in the United States, and I was fortunate enough to have been able to take an Advanced Placement class which barely covered these subjects. Most of my schoolmates, most Americans, and most of our policymakers were not nearly as fortunate as I was. And yet I still needed to make a little extra effort and enroll in African American History since 1965 during my second year of college to fully (or maybe just partially) grasp the historical context and significance of our country’s racial issues.

How does this all tie into why I didn’t think Northam should resign? I think it does in three ways (and, honestly, more. but I think I can only sustain your attention for three). 

The first is that I found it believable that Northam make an ignorant mistake in 1984. I didn’t think his offense was so egregious that is merited his resignation. It didn’t seem as if he had hurt anyone then (his black classmate from Eastern Virginia Medical felt the same way.) And I felt the policies and political stances he took during his governorship were clear indications that he had evolved as a person. I felt that if he could sincerely apologize, show a clear commitment to the cause of Civil Rights and begin the process of healing, he could, at the very least, regain our trust. I thought that we, at least, needed to hear the man out.

The second is that I hope that Northam remaining in office would lead to a better discussion of race. I thought that is could bring forth interesting conversations about evolution in character that our country needs. When the photo first began to circulate (and before any of his responses), I felt that Northam’s story (loosely) mirrored our country’s story. He used to be overtly racist, now, through his policies, he has shown that he isn’t. Is getting rid of that overt racism enough? How can he make up for the blemishes of his past and how can he better recognize his shortcomings and biases in the present? How can we take this incident and help us move forward into the future? I felt none of these would be answered, or discussed, if he resigned.

Finally, I didn’t think he should step down because I am angry (yes, I will say angry) about so many more salient issues related to race than this one. It didn’t make sense to me that we all would get so worked up out a costume worn at a party 35 years ago when I am so worked up about red-lining, mass incarceration, and the general lack of awareness or understanding of racial issues pervasive throughout this country. Once again, I thought this was relatively harmless compared to, say, Joe Biden’s treatment of Anita Hill in 1991 or the evidence of very discriminatory practices by President Trump’s real estate company in the 1970s. I wondered what the line we draw from outrage is. I didn’t think it was fair that the world could get mad at Northam for something he did 35 years ago when, a lot of the time, it seems like so few of us care about issues that affect minorities today. It’s easy to get angry about overt racism. It’s harder to put in the efforts to get angry about subtle racism. While overt racism definitely still is a problem, I would argue that subtle, institutional racism is a much bigger problem. Where is the unified anger to fight that?  

All of this is to say that we need to make sure our policymakers and our public are better exposed to our country’s racial history and issues. If it truly is too hard to integrate these vital histories into our education systems, the least we can do is change the way we think and talk about race.

So… should Northam resign?

Absolutely.

But not because of a woefully ignorant mistake he made 35 years ago.

He should resign for failing to come forward with the information earlier. He should resign for failing to acknowledge that he was in the photo and for trying to cover up something he admitted to doing a day before. He should resign after he almost moonwalked on stage during a press conference.

​In my opinion, Northam had the opportunity to reconcile for his past. But his actions over the course of the past week showed that he is not ready or fit to do so as governor. Reconciliation is no longer possible without at least a resignation.