"I can hardly believe that the Washington Post would publish an editorial asking for a taxpayer bailout of newspapers," said host Stuart Varney. "Tell me I should not be shocked."
Varney, said Gainor, shouldn't be surprised, since the editorial was "pegged to a report that came out by former editor Len Downey calling for exactly that same thing." Gainor explained that industry insiders and liberals, along with some on Capitol Hill are either desperate to save journalism jobs or salivating at the prospect of exercising greater control over the media. "You've got both houses of Congress, the Federal Trade Commission and the FCC all looking at the future of journalism and all trying to get their hooks into it."
The reasons for demanding government help are, as the Business & Media Institute found in a brand new Special Report titled "The Great Newspaper Bailout," is that journalism, particularly of local journalism, is a public good, and that in other democracies the news media is far more lavishly underwritten by taxpayers.
"They're trying to do this two different ways," Gainor told Varney. "On one hand, they want to save the old media - you know, protect their current jobs. But if that doesn't work, they want to make sure that they dump a whole bunch of money into new media, and use what they call the existing infrastructure of things like NPR and PBS and plow money into them." So much so, Gainor said, that some have called for a 4,700 percent increase in funding for public media.
Asked to handicap the likelihood of success in these bailout efforts, Gainor put it at 50 - 50. "When major media outlets are involved in this, this is not a minor thing that some rinky-dink left wing think tank is pushing."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Why would any tax payer want
October 20, 2009 - 14:42 ET by d1carterWhy would any tax payer want to raise media from the dead? No one wants to pay for the crap that is now being put out as news. No way, no how.
What "they" want is total
October 20, 2009 - 15:03 ET by Dan The Man 2What "they" want is total and copmplete control over the message. Just look at Dunn's admission and the lengths Duh Vain One went to.
Know how to keep a Troll in suspense? Ill tell ya in the morning.
Well think about it...
October 20, 2009 - 15:51 ET by Thinking.Man...they already work for the whitehouse, why shouldnt he/we pay their salaries, they are after all nothing but volunteer Government Employees at this point.
When the tide changes guess who is going to be washed out to sea?
Boo-hoo, cry me a river you leftist loosers!
Bailout -> Czar
October 20, 2009 - 14:47 ET by CO2MakerIf WaPo, the Gray Lady, USAToady, etc., ask for and get a bailout, will they also get a nifty czar in their Crackerjack box?
Shouldn't the White House set up a czar to oversee the bailed out newspapers?
Would that position be called the Comma czar? <g>
Will a commaczar of newspapers lead to a commisar of content?
Hmmmmm.
It's not far from the school of Tass communications to the Devil Wears Pravda
While they're at it...
October 20, 2009 - 14:54 ET by RpeggioWhy doesn't the gov't bail out more outdated forms of media like the VHS tape player, 8 track players, betamax, laser disk players, bail out all old and tired forms of media and technology....that make a lot of sense.
You'd think the liberal climate freaks would want to do away with newspapers to save the forests???
How bout letting old forms of media die their own slow death, let the free market do it's thing or the gov't will end up owning newspapers and funding/subsidizing them forever. Though with Obama nothing would surprise me at this point, he spends our money so freely it's insane.
over spending didn't start january 20th 09
October 20, 2009 - 15:10 ET by sajc05thats two presidents in a row that spend our money so freely its insane. bush bailed out the banks, and added trillions to our deficit by signing medicare part D and starting 2 wars as once... all on the nations credit card.
Now an actual self described liberal is doing the same thing. this country really can't afford any more democrats OR republicans.
A teensy, tiny little detail you left out.
October 20, 2009 - 15:22 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonPresident Bush did NOT start any wars. The terrorists attacked US.
And to further clarify the issue, there is/was only one war, and it is still going on.
WE are fighting the war there instead of here.
If you would prefer to fight the war here, please take a year and go live in a war zone where terrorist bomobings occur on a daily basis, and get back to us on that idea.
We don't much like the part of the plan that you didn't think through, so YOU go play in the war zone BEFORE you invite it back here.
http://gjresult.com
You got it Willis
October 20, 2009 - 15:37 ET by SickofLibsAnd WWII was WWII, not the War Against Germany, The War Against Japan and The War Against Italy.
a teensy detail you left out as well
October 20, 2009 - 16:10 ET by sajc05I didn't want to turn this into a debate of the merits of any war, but how in the world can you explain that if we didn't invade iraq we'd be "fighting them here" ?? was the iraqi army going to invade the US? did Iraqi's attack us on 9/11? i thought they were Saudi's?
You cannot compare Germany 1936 to Iraq 2003. 67 years later Iraq was no where near as militarized as Germany was. 2 German divisions from 1936 could handle the Iraqi army of 2003 and you're worried about fighting Iraq here in the US? do you not know we have a pretty good military? how would that ever occur?
Oh goody!!! More teensy details...
October 21, 2009 - 08:21 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonWe aren't fighting a war with the military, but terrorists that hide in civilian clothes.
We aren't fighting the military in Afghanistan, but more terorists hiding in civilian clothing.
Our military is not the only US Force we have fighting these cowards, we have the CIA, FBI, and about 15 other alpahbets working to ensure the fighting stays somewhere else.
Iraq was training and supplying terrorists, but intellectually honest people that do their own homework already know that.
Our military is fighting terrorists that hide in civilian clothing and sneak around in the dark in two countries, the rest of the alphabets are worldwide in every other country on the planet investigating activities that may be harmful to your way of life.
IF you ever meet one of the alphabet people, drop to your knees instantly and thank them from the bottom of your cheesy little heart for what they do for you and your way of life.
Without them your, your family and your neighbors would probably have been blown into teensy little pieces quite some time back.
And if the terrorists, still hiding in civilian clothing and sneaking around in the dark ever do get a foothold here, thank the democrat party and every person that voted for this fool in the White House.
http://gjresult.com
As a side bet: Who thinks the White House and the contents given to the American People over the centuries will be left in a decent shape when the Arab and his family vacate the premises?
In WWII the Germans did not
October 21, 2009 - 15:50 ET by Dan The Man 2In WWII the Germans did not attack us it was the Japanese, so why did we go after the Germans?
Know how to keep a Troll in suspense? Ill tell ya in the morning.
Do you think it may have
October 21, 2009 - 16:09 ET by JerDo you think it may have had something to do with the fact that Hitler declared WAR against the United States?
Or do you consider that to have been far too trivial to get all worked up over?
Jer
So if Hussein decalred war
October 21, 2009 - 17:02 ET by Dan The Man 2So if Hussein decalred war we go there? He did declare war against us also. We went to Iraq for a number of reasons you might not understand or even care about.
Know how to keep a Troll in suspense? Ill tell ya in the morning.
Dan, I bet I'm far more
October 21, 2009 - 18:47 ET by JerDan, I bet I'm far more versed on the reasons than you'll ever be. You've already demonstrated your colossal ignorance about the casus belli regarding Germany and WWII, and I wanted to keep you from further embarrassing yourself in the future in that respect. We can rehash Iraq another time. Right now, I'm not so inclined.
Jer
ROFLMAO. See tag line
October 21, 2009 - 23:53 ET by Dan The Man 2Know how to keep a Troll in suspense? Ill tell ya in the morning.
I don't have time to worry
October 21, 2009 - 23:57 ET by JerI don't have time to worry about your tagline. I'm busy trying to help out MightyMouth.
Jer
Thank God Jer! MM needs the help!
October 22, 2009 - 00:06 ET by MightyMouth"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
You know it's kinda funny Jer
October 21, 2009 - 19:03 ET by MightyMouthCanada had more balls and delcared war on Germany in 1939 while Roosevelt played politics and just sent material for the war. He was itching to get into it but liberals like Charles Lindbergh, the former president Hoover (the second worst next to Obama) and even Teddy R's. Son captured the spotlight to keep the US out. If the US would have acted sooner there most likely would have been back down by Japan and a less protracted conflict. You see Jer being a bully does have it's advantages.
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
MM///
October 21, 2009 - 19:38 ET by JerLindbergh...liberal? Whoops. There I go forgetting Willis Rules again.
Btw...FDR engaged in just about as much bullying he could conceivably get away with, continually tweaking both the Germans and the Japanese. But the nation was overwhelmingly and bipartisan isolationist, embraced by both Democrats/ liberals and Republicans/conservatives--although conservatives were more often the political spearhead for the movement.
Lindbergh's politics was a mixed bag. But he was more Republican conservative than anything else during that period.
Jer
Let's not get sidetracked...
October 21, 2009 - 19:44 ET by MightyMouthLindbergh was anti-interventionist! That makes him a pussy! I don't care what his voter reg card said!
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
Well
October 21, 2009 - 19:13 ET by general companyHitler did declare war on the US, about the same time Japan did, 4 days after Pearl. Kinda kills Jer's premise
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
And that kills my response
October 21, 2009 - 19:25 ET by JerAnd that kills my response how, g c?
Jer
Response? I said premise
October 21, 2009 - 19:28 ET by general companyOf this arguement
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Sorry for rthe misreading,
October 21, 2009 - 19:40 ET by JerSorry for rthe misreading, g c...
Eyesight is not quite what it used to be. Still fail to see how it affects my premise though
Jer.
Sure no problem,
October 21, 2009 - 20:05 ET by general companyWell maybe I misunderstand, lets see here, Dan asked: In WWII the Germans did not attack us it was the Japanese, so why did we go after the Germans?
You responded with: Do you think it may have had something to do with the fact that Hitler declared WAR against the United States?
Or do you consider that to have been far too trivial to get all worked up over?
Then I mention that the Germans actually declared war on the US after Japan. Suggesting that Dave question was far more relevant then you led us to believe.
Fact of the matter is we went after Germany first because we were already somewhat invested in that war. Also it would allow the Allies to support us in the Pacific after a German defete. Although they were not able to help much, that was the thinking. Not sure if I would had done it that way, considering the following April Baaton fell and we left over 70k troops at the mercy of Japan. Would had liked a better out come for those solders,
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I wasn't implying--at least
October 21, 2009 - 20:31 ET by JerI wasn't implying--at least didn't intend to imply--Germany had already declared war on us simultaneously with the bombing of Pearl Harbor by Japan. Dan seemed to be suggesting we just pre-emptively attacked Germany prior to any declaration of war, while the Japanese were the only belligerents vis a vis the US.
But I totally agree with your last paragraph. Well said. Of course, FDR and MacArthur both expected Wainwright would hold out much longer on Bataan and Corrigidor than he in fact did.
Jer
Suggested ya right. Perception is reality?
October 22, 2009 - 00:09 ET by Dan The Man 2Know how to keep a Troll in suspense? Ill tell ya in the morning.
Partly true
October 20, 2009 - 15:57 ET by RpeggioHey, I'm an independent and no Bush fan, but you do realize that the two wars cost us just under $1 Trillion from 2002-2008. And the deficit was half of what it is now ($1.4T and counting). The entire gov't failed us with the Fannie Mae/Wall Street securitized mortgage debacle but do you think for an instant that McCain would have allowed Pelosi/Reid to throw a massive $800B spending/stimulus bill together, < 5% on roads/bridges/infrastructure? Hell no. McCain would have (I think) made a massive cut or freeze on Federal payroll taxes so every working American rec'd an immediate stimulus in their next paycheck of 20-30%. That would have been a true immediate stimulus and you and I could have already seen several thousand dollars in stimulus which we could have spent, thus increasing consumer spending and saving a few Million jobs, keeping the unemployment % under 8% as they had promised. Why have the wasteful and inefficient gov't, who had a huge hand in our problems, spend our own money on stuff they want to fund? Gov't spending was bad under Bush but Obama has quadrupled down on debt and deficit spending and wants to spend more! And hit every American directly and indirectly with taxes and higher prices via Cap & Tax and Healthcare reform (that doesn't include cross-state competition or tort reform). It's a joke.
good points, I do not
October 20, 2009 - 16:18 ET by sajc05good points, I do not think the gov't should be in the business of bailing out companies of any kind or taking tax payer money and redistributing it to americans to spend on items they probably don't even need.
And medicare part D has ballooned our unfunded promises to the baby boomers tens of trillions of dollars. our deficits are actually worse than what the gov't tells us if you include social security and medicare. So it's just my opinion that both parties are to blame for our current economic mess. some people here seem to think it started january 20th.
anyone who voted to bailout the banks is not a far sighted, smart individual, and both bush and obama have tried to scare us into thinking we have to bail them out they're "too big to fail" well why are they too big to fail? let's correct that part of it.
Richard Connor,Central Maine
October 20, 2009 - 14:59 ET by Nortonewspapers is already positioning himself by drooling over Olympia Snowe's national importance and her uniqueness among the gop. I even wrote that to him in a note I will hand deliver soon.
His stand could not have been more obvious.
Norto, I've been reading
October 21, 2009 - 08:34 ET by celatorNorto, I've been reading the Portland Press Herald and have also been watching Conner's lap dog treatment of Snowe. I was hoping that when he bought the papers in Portland, Augusta and Waterville, we would see a shift to at least the center of the aisle. But, you're right.
He's absolutely sucking up to Snowe and her disasterous impact on the state and the nation. I'm very ticked off about this. He's just another liberal media Judas goat leading readers off the cliff. Pathetic.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
I would just like these
October 20, 2009 - 14:59 ET by sajc05I would just like these "news" outfits from the times or the post to fox or msnbc to start actually reporting news.
I'd be for bailing out newspapers if in return we got real investigative reporting, politicians of both parties being held accountable for them money they take and form who they take it. the big banks the fed being investigated more closely with good journalism so the next time 2 trillion dollars vanishes and the fed won't tell what it did with it or who got it we wont be swamped with 24 hour coverage of balloon boy or sex scandals.
i'm mean bush and obama have no trouble bailing out their buddies at goldman but the one entity that is supposed to be (but is not unfortunately) a check on our gov'ts shady dealings won't get a dime. why? because they don't have 10 lobbyists for every one congressman like all the other powerful entities do -the banks, health insurance, certain unions ect...
but it is sad that the worse a paper does profit wise, the more entertainment news they'll get into, with real journalism shrinking by the day.
A Wall of Separation Between Press and State
October 20, 2009 - 15:08 ET by KC MulvilleI'm willing to argue that freedom of the press - first amendment here - should be treated just like freedom of religion. ANY support of any one media outlet must be interpreted as interference. We need to have a separation of press and state.
Public good is a huge topic, especially in game theory. But put this into perspective. Phone service is a public good. Taxis are a public good. A lot of things are public goods, but that alone doesn't mean that government is required to support their continued existence, or especially their current style of existence.
Of course, if the whole industry is failing, then there is an argument for government might step in. But the whole industry isn't failing. Only the establishment, liberal media are failing. The conservative media (Fox News, talk radio) are doing just fine.
good points but i hope you
October 20, 2009 - 15:16 ET by sajc05good points
but i hope you agree that there shouldn't only be conservative or liberal media. Where would the check and balance be? right now we have democrats defending democrats and attacking republicans and the reverse. all the while no journalism ever actually takes place.
A typical fox or msnbc show the host says "abortion, good or bad? here to debate is democrat strategist x and republican strategist z " do you call that journalism? all in between wall to wall gossip stories.
No argument from me, but ...
October 20, 2009 - 17:41 ET by KC MulvilleOf course, I don't believe in journalism. I deny that journalism is a a separate "ministry" with special privileges.
Free speech is free speech. If you can sell your information, perspectives, and opinion to news consumers, feel free. But the idea that reporters are celibate public servants, deserving of special privileges ... screw that!
Turn it around on them
October 20, 2009 - 15:18 ET by richb313Turn it around on them. I would just say ,"Eventually a Republican/Conservative will once again Win the Presidency and Control Congress. Do you want a Government Controlled Media with them in charge?"
It does not matter that Republicans/Conservatives have little history of trying to control the press the way the Democrats or Liberals do. They will see it through thier own filter, "If we do it they will do it too."
I think that would stop this before it starts.
Who Let the Cheshire Cat In?
October 20, 2009 - 16:18 ET by CGatton"I think that would stop this before it starts."
A pipe dream, I'm afraid. To get a preview of what really happens once the foot is in the door, just look to Massachusett's senator succession law, and how it was instantly manipulated to preserve the Dem/lib influence. Should it come to pass that the government 'controls' the media under Democrat rule, I assure you there will be a codicil before they lose power that to change paths or undo such an aberation will require a 60% vote in both Chambers of Corruption, 67% if they can find a precedent for such action.
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Public option leads to Single Sayer
October 20, 2009 - 15:23 ET by CO2MakerI think we should bail out the media outlets (except Faux News) so that they can become healthy and compete (with Faux News). I think that, when push comes to push polling, the federal government should guarantee everybody's right to the best news around, and that would be delivered via a public option (like NPR, only less right wing). If inaccurate thinking persists (like at Faux News) the only reliable recourse would be to go from the public option to the Single Sayer, where the administration tightly controls the news and just drops the video disks >plouffe< in the reporters' inboxes, guaranteeing accuracy in uniformity, so they all report the same truthiness.
If the TAXPAYERS wanted to support these businesses
October 20, 2009 - 15:26 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonThey would by buying their product.
IF they had a product worth buying, even to a liberal, it would be bought.
But since roughly half of this country is made up of liberals and they can't even sell to a market of around 150 million people, their product really has no value to anybody.
http://gjresult.com
Can't say it often enough,
October 21, 2009 - 02:40 ET by RR GOPCan't say it often enough, but these Communists are playing for keeps.
Our only hope is that the typical Communist ineptitude and infighting will win out in the end.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.