Montana should stop funding media blacklists

Montana prides itself on independence.

We value open spaces, open markets, and open minds. We are skeptical of distant institutions that presume they know what’s best for our communities.

That is precisely why Montana lawmakers should take a hard look at how state advertising dollars are being spent.

Today, Montana state agencies hire advertising firms to place public service announcements, tourism campaigns, workforce recruitment ads and other taxpayer-funded messages. Many of those advertising firms rely on media monitoring companies like NewsGuard or the group Global Disinformation Index (GDI) when deciding where to place ads.

These media monitors assign ratings to news outlets and publishers, claiming to measure credibility and reliability. Advertisers frequently use those ratings to determine which media outlets are considered “safe” for advertising and which should be avoided.

In practice, that means a private ratings company can influence whether taxpayer-funded advertising appears on a particular website, podcast, newspaper, or news outlet. A low rating can result in fewer or no advertising dollars flowing to that outlet, even if it reaches exactly the audience a state agency is trying to reach.

Imagine Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks wants to promote hunting opportunities, or the state’s tourism office wants to attract visitors to Glacier National Park. These audiences, drawn to the rugged Montana lifestyle popularized by Yellowstone, often consume conservative and independent media.

Common sense would suggest placing ads in these outlets.

But if an advertising firm relies on a ratings system that disfavors certain media outlets, those ads may never appear there. Instead, taxpayer dollars can be steered elsewhere, regardless of whether those placements are the most effective way to reach Montanans or potential visitors considering a trip to Big Sky Country.

This is not a hypothetical problem. Montana already relies on outside firms to place taxpayer-funded advertising across digital platforms. Those firms often employ “brand safety” and media-suitability tools that can exclude entire categories of news outlets from advertising consideration. The result is that taxpayer advertising decisions are influenced by corporate gatekeepers who don’t know Montana rather than audience performance.

That’s why a growing number of policymakers are questioning whether taxpayer-funded advertising should be filtered through these systems at all.

It’s a problem for free speech. But in Montana, it’s also a problem for taxpayers.

Montana’s economy depends heavily on tourism, ranching, agriculture, energy production, outdoor recreation, and rural workforce development. When state agencies use advertising firms that rely on media-monitoring services, Montana risks reducing the effectiveness of campaigns designed to reach these audiences.

That means fewer tourism dollars, weaker outreach, less effective recruitment efforts in rural communities, and diminished returns on taxpayer-funded communications.

The concerns extend beyond economics.

Studies show conservative outlets routinely receive substantially lower ratings than left-leaning outlets. Some studies have even found instances where Chinese state-controlled media outlets received higher credibility scores than certain American conservative publications.

Whether one agrees with those publications is beside the point.

Montanans should be concerned when media-rating organizations treat outlets controlled by authoritarian governments more favorably than independent American publishers.

Fortunately, policymakers across the country are beginning to address the problem.

Florida recently renewed anti-blacklisting protections through its state budget for a second consecutive year. West Virginia enacted similar safeguards through its First Amendment Preservation Act. South Carolina has included such protections through their state budget process. Congress included related language in the National Defense Authorization Act restricting the Pentagon from using advertising agencies that employ media-monitoring systems when placing military recruitment ads.

Federal regulators at the Federal Trade Commission have taken notice as well, enacting safeguards against exclusionary practices based on political ideology.

At a time when policymakers across the country are pushing back against media blacklists, Montana should not sit on the sidelines. The state has an opportunity to lead by ensuring government advertising decisions are based on audience reach, performance, and value, not the political preferences of ratings organizations that have nothing to do with working Montanans.

We have always believed in fair competition, individual liberty, and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

Our advertising policies should reflect those values.

By Representative Amy Regier

Rep. Amy Regier represents House District 6 in the Flathead. She is the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee.