@jayrosen_nyu Some quick thoughts on the piece itself:

The Postal Subsidy was a good policy where authoring was reasonably inexpensive and distribution expensive. We're now in precisely the opposite situation, and worse, cheap distribution is actual a major factor in killing much local coverage: compelling distractions (on the audience side) and audiences (on the advertiser side) drive minimum-viable-content of generic and common (in all the lowest senses) forms.

Vibrant news organisations require incubation and development over years and decades. "Citizen journalism" is proved not to work (though it's useful for gathering images and video from far-flung locations). In-depth investigation and local connections take time, and require institutions that drive this. Any solution which fails to cultivate those institutions is likely futile, and mere tax credits ... likely won't work.

There are many potential pitfalls of policy-based approaches, though I think that there's at least a general appreciation for these. Avoiding further monopolisation, news deserts, or cooption by perverted interests would be high up my own list. There's also the question of crazies, fools, and opportunists.

And underappreciated function of news orgs has been their legal defence capabilities. Publishers and libel-defence attorneys complement like milk and tea (or coffee). Neutered or weak publishing orgs would be prone to legal bullying (though over-large organisations may be excessively resistant to same, see Dominion's far-too-late defamation case).

Some attention to what makes institutions durable, and what institutions have played a positive role in journalism over the past decades and centuries might be appropriate.