It's bad enough we have to bailout banks and auto manufacturers or spread around subsidies for wasteful, inefficient forms of energy like ethanol and morally reprehensible institutions like ACORN and Planned Parenthood.
However, now a couple of the wizards of smart that have managed to land a spot in the editorial pages of The Washington Post are lobbying for journalism subsidies.
In the Oct. 30 Post, the co-founders of Free Press, John Nichols of the liberal publication, the Nation and Robert McChesney, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, suggested it's time for the government to prop-up beleaguered journalists to "spawn" so-called independent media. Nichols and McChesney make the case that newspapers are important for two reasons - one not-so important one and one arguably legitimate one. They maintain President Barack Obama believes newspapers are important and that they play an important part keeping government in check. But in order for them to sustain this vital role in our culture, they say it's time for the government to lend a hand.
"We seek to renew a rich if largely forgotten legacy of the American free-press tradition, one that speaks directly to today's crisis," Nichols and McChesney. "The First Amendment necessarily prohibits state censorship, but it does not prevent citizens from using their government to subsidize and spawn independent media."
They also argue early on in American history the government subsidized journalism by supporting the postal system, which led to "America's progress."
"Indeed, the post-colonial press system was built on massive postal and printing subsidies," Nichols and McChesney wrote. "The first generations of Americans never imagined that the market would provide sound or sufficient journalism. The notion was unthinkable. They established enlightened subsidies, which broadened the marketplace of ideas and enhanced and protected core freedoms. Their initiatives were essential to America's progress. The value of federal journalism subsidies as a percentage of gross domestic product in the first half of the 19th century ran, by our calculations, to about $30 billion per year in current dollars. It is this sort of commitment, established by Jefferson and Madison, that we must imagine to address the current crisis."
But they're not arguing for a newspaper bailout per se, but instead subsidies for journalists of all sorts, specifically those that use digital outlets to spread their message.
"Saving newspapers may be impossible," Nichols and McChesney wrote. "But we can save journalism. Step one is to begin debating ways for enlightened public subsidies to provide a competitive and independent digital news media. Also, we should greatly expand funding for public and community media, and establish policies that help convert dying daily newspapers into post-corporate low-profit news operations that realize the potential of the Internet. If we do so, journalism and democracy will not just survive. They will flourish."
But as a recent report by the MRC's Business & Media Institute points out, increasing government involvement in the media "is wrong-headed and dangerous" because it would increase the government's influence over so-called "independent media."
"The government is already too involved in media. The First Amendment clearly states: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.' Getting government more involved in the media - either through regulations or outright funding - would have horrible long-term consequences," the report argues.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Ah yes
October 30, 2009 - 19:29 ET by 10ksnookerBeck was talking about Robert McChesney today ... Another Obamao Marxist.
Heard a piece of that.
October 30, 2009 - 19:42 ET by GregEHeard a piece of that. It's amazing that in America, a president can actually have marxist thinkers all around him and for the most part it's accepted. Shows how uninformed (and as a result, apathetic) Americans are on many fronts.
Freedom's only hope with the
October 31, 2009 - 03:09 ET by notonmywatchFreedom's only hope with the propagandistic media was that people would stop buying it and it would become unprofitable.
If they do this, violent revolution should begin that day.
___________________________________________________________
Graphical conservative commentary - animations & pictures for posting on forums: http://ubama.org/chu...
We ALL knew this was coming....
October 30, 2009 - 19:36 ET by SlyrrI've been posting about this multiple times. We all knew it was coming, and we'd better be prepared to see more and more of this.
Newspapers across the country, and liberal networks from coast to coast teeter on the edge of total bankruptcy, epic failure and inglorious extinction due to their lousy business sense, their utter contempt for their customers, and their total idiocy about free markets.
And as they finally come to the realization that their incompetence, stupidity and utter obnoxiousness is about to make the lose their jobs, they turn to the one thing they think will save them from their richly-deserved oblivion: a Democrat government take-over.
Yes, we all knew it. The liberal media are sell-outs, propaganists, shills and whores to the Democrat party. And now they're starting to say it out loud. They're starting to actually vocalize what Conservatives have been warning you about for decades - that they want to totally surrender their media networks to Democrats in exchange for taxpayer money a'la PBS.
A couple points....
1) Do the media not see the inherent dangers of placing a POLITICAL organization in control of what they can and can't say? Once these media morons start taking government money (STOLEN from taxpayers at the stroke of a pen), they'll be monetarily obligated to dance to whatever tune their government taskmasters start playing. They'll be the puppets we always knew they were.
2) Do Democrats (rank and file citizen democrats, not their warped and twisted figureheads) not see the inherent danger of placing a POLITICAL organization in control of who does and does not get health care? No matter which party is in control, that power will be abused. What do you want to bet that once all this is locked in, conservatives will wake up one morning and find that Democrats have emptied all their bank accounts with the debit-card access that Democrats have given themselves to every citizen??
Government bailout, in any
October 30, 2009 - 19:41 ET by GregEGovernment bailout, in any way, of newspapers or journalists, will be a travesty for our nation. (uuhh, yea, another one in the list).
Beck played a clip on his radio show today, of Van Jones saying (and I'm paraphrasing overall) that Progressives in power and a progressive media is what is needed, because there is no opposition without an opposition media. (that last part verbatim, not paraphrased)
Greg... SC indeed. You
October 30, 2009 - 19:43 ET by bigtimerGreg...
SC indeed.
You watch the House or Senate try to sneak this in somewhere along the way...if it comes to that...which I also think it will... as you have.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
Given what the Obama cabal
October 30, 2009 - 19:50 ET by SlyrrGiven what the Obama cabal has already said about FOX and other media, this should be a chilling, frightening thing to ANYONE in this country who believes in the constitution. Obama and his thugs have already tried fighting against media oganizations, simply for daring to criticize him.
What will they do once they've totally taken over? Thumbscrews and hot coals? Lobotomies? I think there's no depth too low for Demorats and their tyrannical, fascist mentors.
do we need to know any more than this?
October 30, 2009 - 19:45 ET by FranksamEven if he did shoot heroin, John Lennon foresaw this problem years ago. who will pay the newspapers, and will they get what they pay for? That is the question. We know the answer.
Paperback writer, paperback writer.
Dear Sir or Madam will you read my book,
It took me years to write will you take a look,
Based on a novel by a man named Lear,
And I need a job,
So I want to be a paperback writer,
Paperback writer.
It's a dirty story of a dirty man,
And his clinging wife doesn't understand.
His son is working for the Daily Mail,
It's a steady job,
But he wants to be a paperback writer,
Paperback writer.
It's a thousand pages give or take a few,
I'll be writing more in a week or two,
I can make it longer if you like the style,
I can change it round,
And I want to be a paperback writer,
Paperback writer.
If you really like it you can have the rights,
It could make a million for you overnight,
If you must return it you can send it here,
But I need a break,
And I want to be a paperback writer,
Paperback writer.
US Releases
UK Releases
Listen to MIDI version of this song:
(this feature may not be supported in all browsers)
Well, Paperback Writer is
October 30, 2009 - 19:51 ET by Jack BauerWell, Paperback Writer is one of my favorite Beatles songs. But... I don't quite see it's relevance here.
News Whores, maybe it wasn't clear
October 30, 2009 - 20:12 ET by FranksamYou get what you pay for, and if the newspapers are taking government dollars, they will hardly be critical. I'll deconstruct this. (BTW, Jack I have nothing but respect for you frequent and thoughtful posts here on NB.)
I can make it longer if you like the style,
I can change it round,
And I want to be a paperback writer,
Paperback writer.
If you really like it you can have the rights,
It could make a million for you overnight
So, now do you understand why I think that government subsidies to 'news providers', such as newspapers, might be a problem? I could go on, if necessary, let me know.
Yep, if we think newspapers
October 30, 2009 - 20:13 ET by GregEYep, if we think newspapers and other media are already in the jock strap of the administration, just wait until they're being paid by the administration. What planet am I on??????
You get what you pay for
October 30, 2009 - 20:22 ET by bigtimerYou get what you pay for indeed....and I did understand the meaning of Lennon's words, your post...sometimes one sees things or takes the situation through a different View-Finder in life...all I know is I understood your post....and also love Jack and his posts as well, always will.
I do hope if this does come to fruition this is one big court case like GregE suggested...SC will be called upon... eventually.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
No surprise here
October 30, 2009 - 19:54 ET by GalvanicOur universities are heavily subsidized by state budgets and Federal grants. It shouldn't come as any surprise that a professor -- essentially a government employee - recommends putting journalists on the public payroll.
"Saving newspapers may be impossible," Nichols and McChesney wrote. "But we can save journalism. Step one is to begin debating ways for enlightened public subsidies to provide a competitive and independent digital news media. . . ."
Does anyone not suspect that these two would consider themselves suitable to determine to whom 'enlightened public subsidies' would go?
"Also, we should greatly expand funding for public and community media, and establish policies that help convert dying daily newspapers into post-corporate low-profit news operations that realize the potential of the Internet. If we do so, journalism and democracy will not just survive. They will flourish."
Free speech and journalism are thriving on the Internet without public subsidies. Government meddling can only disrupt it.
"Free speech and
October 30, 2009 - 20:01 ET by G. MayToo late.
Sweet Lord, I'll lead the charge up Capitol Hill if this happens
October 30, 2009 - 20:04 ET by KC MulvilleI'll carry on despite my nausea about this idea.
Finally, if this is how lousy their logic is, why prop them up? Let's allow such thinkers a humane death, one that nature so plainly demands. Why prolong the agony? Put us all out of the misery.
Never have I seen lack of
October 30, 2009 - 20:19 ET by GregENever have I seen lack of logic as I have seen in the last few years with Congress and now with this Obama crapadmin. They call government subsidizing, "independent." They call removal of union election secret ballot the "Employee Free Choice Act." They come up with phrases like "create or save" to describe jobs. It goes on and on. The logical mind, such as my own, looks at those things and wonders how an adult with any brain at all actually buys into that kind of stupidity, much less authors it.
Greg... The logical mind,
October 30, 2009 - 20:26 ET by bigtimerGreg...
The logical mind, such as my own, looks at those things and wonders how
an adult with any brain at all actually buys into that kind of
stupidity, much less authors it.
The same type of people that report on these creatures 24/7, let alone the critters that vote for them...repeatedly.
Agenda equals results.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
I was about to edit but you
October 30, 2009 - 20:35 ET by GregEI was about to edit but you evidentally were posting. You're correct. That's the big problem. People can look at phrases like that, and can't see the stupidity in them, simply because their ideology tells them there's nothing wrong there. I was going to post that it shouldn't matter what political party, or anyone else, regarding stupid things like that. Americans should be much better than to accept the nonsense phraseology, even if one accepts the context of the actual thing that is described.
Schools. Starts right there. And liberals know it, and don't care one ounce. An educated population is a hinderance to government, so those wanting more government control are not interested in an educated population............though they'll act as if they are and tell us all that they are. BS, I know better. They are interested only in a selectively educated population, with information selected by the liberals that are looking to protect themselves and their ideas for the future of America.
Greg... Right you are...I
October 30, 2009 - 20:49 ET by bigtimerGreg...
Right you are...I forgot a main component in all of the leftist agenda...Public (Union/commies) Education...from cradle to grave.
I'd be so happy if I ever saw it go back to the States.
I fear that is also a lost cause... in my lifetime anyway.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
Yea, that's a lost cause.
October 30, 2009 - 20:54 ET by GregEYea, that's a lost cause. Many things are, due to our lack of proper education about our nation and it's core principles. Though government is extremely brazen, I don't think it will ever step over a line of tyranny that's to a degree that most of America actually recognize it as such.
You and I would, and do, but it would take tyranny to an unbelievable degree before most of America would say "enough!" and begin to TRULY dismantle the idiots.
Subsidizing journalists
October 30, 2009 - 20:07 ET by MidAmericaSubsidizing journalists won't change anything because there isn't a shortage of journalists but rather a shortage of readers.
Nothing like reinforcing
October 30, 2009 - 20:54 ET by BDNothing like reinforcing failure....
Subsidize journalists??
October 30, 2009 - 21:17 ET by shooterNo, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,
and, no.
_________________________________________
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert A. Heinlein
If you want to insure that jounalism survives after...
October 30, 2009 - 21:41 ET by traderjamesyour employer files for bankruptcy and eventually liquidates, here's my solution:
Move into your mother's basement and start your own blog ! There I said it !
I will lend you $100 to get started, but I demand that all stories go through me first hehe.
Maybe if the so-called journalists were objective
October 30, 2009 - 21:44 ET by c5thenInstead of advocating for one side as so many of them are now doing their companies would be more profitable and viable. The newspapers are dying because they can not compete with the internet and are almost all totally left leaning and publish more advocacy than news.
The government should not (and can not by the Constitution) subsidize industries or occupations that are unsustainable in the free market. With that attitude we would be paying for thousands of waggon makers and saddle makers.
Throw 'da bums out!!!
Before it's too late.
www.loyaltoliberty.com
You pays your money, you takes you pick
October 30, 2009 - 21:47 ET by CO2MakerIF Uncle Sam gives a newspaper money, what can he ask the newspaper to do and what can he NOT? That's really the serious question.
Can--actually, may--a newspaper accept advertising? IF yes, may it accept advertising that criticizes the government or proposes alternatives to government programs? May the newspaper accept political advertising? May a newspaper run a political advertisement if the government contends that it is misleading? May a newspaper run a political ad that is provocative, such as those by David Horowitz's?
What are the safeguards, if there are any when the government--any government--is dispensing money? What happens when, after a period of apparent non-invoovement by Uncle Sam, a citizen or two or three get upset by something the paper published or a policy it follows and asks the government to make the paper correct what the people do not like?
The federal government should not pay any form of subsidies for newspapers or journalists.
And the claim that there is a precedent in the early postal and printing subsidies is misdirected. Subsidies for the post office benefited more than newspapers, and those for printing likewise supported other purposes than newspapers. The analogy today would be any governmental involvement in the Internet or in television or telephonic communications.
I can't imagine how the government would respond to a press outlet that openly doubted its explanations and proposals, as we have seen in the last year. Imagine if Fox News had accepted some form of subsidy from the federal government: would Obama just snub their Sunday talk show? Or would Holder or somebody else bring serious legal muscle, based on the fact that they gave Fox money, to get them to fall back into line?
Subsidize Journalists
October 30, 2009 - 21:50 ET by SilverFoxSilverFox
Good God!! Subsidize Journalists...well just follow the money & be assured they will report the news as the money tells them to report. I keep thinking it can't get any more disgusting, frm out politicians, but it does.
If you want to read a new political thriller, & I encourage everyone, then read about a small town in American who stands up to the politicians/big govt. wasting your tax dollars & ends up starting the 2nd American Revolution!
It's insightful of today's events & where politicians no longer represent you or me, but only big government. It's a great read!!
www.booksbyoliver.com
No problem
October 30, 2009 - 22:01 ET by pbthinkerIf the press thinks they need a bailout, let them ask the DNC since, during the past few years, they've been little more than the media wing of the Democratic Party. At least, if they took money directly from the DNC, everyone else would be able to see what we Republicans have been talking about.
If they want to debate it, I'll point on 2 occasions where they've carried water for the Democrats, 2006 - Culture of Corruption. You couldn't turn on the news without another story from the MSM about the Republicans and the Culture of Corruption. Have you noticed any stories about that lately? (Aside from this small kerfuffle with the leaked report from the House Ethics Committee).
Secondly, and the most famous, "macaca" from the Washington Post. I'm sure the Post wishes they had a one word editorial they could throw at the Virginia governor's race right now, they'd to it. Instead, they had to drag out a 30 year old college paper. Gee, can we go back 30 years and see what these people wrote in college, I'm sure we could have quite a laugh.
So, here you go NY Times. Here you go, Washington Post. Head on down the Democratic Headquarters and get them to dole out some money for all that free support you've been giving them. Hey, just the endorsements should be worth something. Trust me, we won't think any less of you for taking the money.
Election 2008-God's way of showing us that elections count.
To Hell With This
October 30, 2009 - 22:12 ET by Dim BulbSome of my tax dollars pay for the Velveeta handed out in government cheese lines. If an unemployed Maureen Dowd needs to stand in such a line for a pound of American Yellow, I'm fine with that. But if I have to pay for her re-education...NOT ONE THIN DIME!
DB... ....Let alone one
October 30, 2009 - 22:16 ET by bigtimerDB...
....Let alone one red cent.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
Why didn't George Washington think of this?
October 30, 2009 - 22:39 ET by American DelightGosh, how did Americans ever get the information & news they've needed for the past 230 years without the government's help?
Thank goodness that 21st Century Democrats will correct for this serious oversight our Founding Fathers made.
Aw Right
October 30, 2009 - 23:02 ET by jaywlHey, I can tell you guys are really against this. Not me. In my wilder, unfocused, didn't know what I was going to do days I got an AA in journalism! Always knew it would pay off some day. $30 billion divided by just as few as possible will mean a comfy subsidy. Might even do the ol' switcheroo and support the Big O, I'm sure they'll be checking on who's out here saying bad things about 'em.
I want to see more positive coverage on this website, Mr Bozell. I think it's time you take responsibilty for the comments on your.......
Stupidity by the bucketload...
October 30, 2009 - 23:36 ET by docjohn52"time for the government to lend a hand."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa hheeeeeheheheheeeeeee!
Whew! Whoa!
I'm sorry.
Stupidity by the bucketload... means writing crap, that you call news, that your readers won't buy. Literally won't buy!
NYT, LAT, PLEASE - go the way of the Seattle Post... cya!
proposing what already exists?
October 31, 2009 - 02:18 ET by konoBut we already subsidize journalism -- it's called PBS and NPR, and they've both been unremittingly Liberal as long as I can tell (since at least 1980). People have grown desperate to get 'the other side of the story', to a point where they'll pay to get it if they have to.
What really gets me: One part of the news business is absolutely THRIVING (those outlets with a neutral-to-Conservative perspective, particularly talk radio), and the gubm'nt wants to shut it down. So the taxpayers will pony-up to destroy the part of the business that works, while they pony-up even more to prop-up the part that fails.
Is this a great country, or what! (/s)
Remember Apple's famous "1984" commercial for the Mac?
October 31, 2009 - 05:11 ET by CO2MakerIt's No. 1 or No. 2 on lists of most influential commercials of all time. 'Member it?
Imagine the people in the audience are the MSM press after drinking the Kool-Aid and taking the money, and the guy on the screen is Gibbs. Hmmmm, that's a grim thought.
Here's a link:
YouTube - 1984 Apple's Macintosh Commercial
The Germans
October 31, 2009 - 09:59 ET by Kingfish17When I was younger, when watching a History Channel show about how Hitler rose to power and led the German people to their demise, I would always wonder how he got away with it. I would wonder: How could the German People be so stupid as to let this guy sway them with just his rhetoric?
As I see the process unfold in the United States, it becomes pretty obvious. It wasn't just Hitler, it's not just Obama, it's a sophisticated, twisted power grab. I'm not saying it's inevitable, but we are on a similar path.
If
October 31, 2009 - 10:12 ET by jessieHIf the they would report the news, they wouldn't need a bailout. The people aren't going to buy a newspaper to read their opinions. They have called the people names, reported obama only stories, and preached their dribble long enough......
Why
November 1, 2009 - 08:43 ET by jessieHWhy should the people give money to the newspapers? Don't they bad mouth the citizens enough? Don't they tell enough lies? Arent they giving obama enough coverage? Don't they back Acorn enough? Isn't killing the trees bad for the environment? Can't the govt. pay for the coverage of obama out of their own pocket? Good thing we have N.B. & Fox News!