2009: The Year of the Newspaper Bailout?

Photo of Tom Blumer.

Michelle Malkin called it, as did several NewsBusters commenters. Their prediction was that newspapers on the brink would be asking for government bailouts.

It came to pass in late November that seven Connecticut legislators asked the state's Department of Economic and Community Development for help in keeping the New Britain Herald and the Bristol Press afloat. A JPEG of the full letter with three of the seven signatures is here. Alleged GOP Governor Jodi Rell is apparently sympathetic.

A Wednesday "analysis" piece by Robert MacMillan of Reuters reports that the state agency is indeed "offering tax breaks, training funds, financing opportunities and other incentives for publishers, but not cash."

Here are other key paragraphs from MacMillan:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Relying on government help raises ethical questions for the press, whose traditional role has been to operate free from government influence as it tries to hold politicians accountable to the people who elected them. Even some publishers desperate for help are wary of this route.

Providing government support can muddy that mission, said Paul Janensch, a journalism professor at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, and a former reporter and editor.

"You can't expect a watchdog to bite the hand that feeds it," he said.

..... The lifeline comes as U.S. newspaper publishers such as the New York Times, Tribune and McClatchy deal with falling advertising revenue, fleeing readers and tremendous debt.

..... Many media experts predict that 2009 will be the year that newspapers of all sizes will falter and die, a threat long predicted but rarely taken seriously until the credit crunch blossomed into a full-fledged financial meltdown.

..... "I truly believe that no democracy can remain healthy without an equally healthy press," said Fiedler, now dean of Boston University's College of Communication. "Thus it is in democracy's interest to support the press in the same sense that the human being doesn't hesitate to take medicine when his or her health is threatened."

Connecticut does not see trying to find a buyer and offering tax breaks as exerting influence on the press, said Joan McDonald, the economic development commissioner.

..... Connecticut's actions are not the first time government has helped newspapers. The U.S. Postal Service has offered discounted postage rates. Several cities have papers running under Joint Operating Agreements, created following the congressional Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970 to keep competing urban dailies viable despite circulation declines.

On the whole, MacMillan's piece comes across as sympathetic to newspaper bailouts. Two unexcerpted paragraphs quote a journalist who says government help wouldn't affect his independence, but he misses the point. Government involvement would, eventually, either lead to government control or, as is the case with the BBC and NPR, ultimately untouchable, highly-subsidized entities that are free to disseminate their non-stop, heavily-biased reports without worrying about whether enough readers or advertisers care enough to pay for it.

The last thing we need is a hundred, or a thousand, little BBC clones running around setting the news agenda without regard to reader or viewer interest, in the process drowning out New Media. Perhaps because these entities would be receiving government money, the government would see it as its duty to keep New Media on the sidelines.

I believe that if New Media ends up inheriting the task of daily news reporting, clever entrepreneurs will figure out a way to do it, and well. It's less likely to happen if they know that their failing competitors in print will be propped up ad infinitum.

2009 should be the year when failing media enterprises give up the ghost, even if it means that some cities and towns have no newspapers. I suggest that we see what pops up to replace them. I'll go further (I'm not clear on what the answer is this question, so I'll throw it open for discussion):  If the answer is "nothing," what's wrong with that?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I stopped reading local printed crap a long time ago

Currently, I use the Internet to get my news. Frankly, most of the AP and Reuters pieces that show up in the local paper are available on the Internet hours before the paper arrives and with Google or Yahoo, I can research it far faster if I think it worth pursuing.

So, I vote for nothing. 

Okay, but ....

.... Here's are questions:

a. How do we find out what's going on in our own backyards if there isn't someone local to report it, be it blogs, newspapers, or whatever? And by backyards, I mean our counties, cities, suburbs, townships, or school districts, whichever apply.

b. Or is local news so unimportant that we can do without it?

c. Is the pretty much undisputed fact that most people could give a rip about what's happening locally going to create a news vacuum that won't be filled if the small local papers die?

My problem with c, and I think most here will agree, is that politicians and others need to be watched by "someone," and I fear that apathy will keep that "someone" from appearing (of course you can argue that many of the local papers don't do a good job of watching as it is). Maybe an apathetic populace gets what it deserves, but I'm not comfortable with leaving it at that.

 

Have these idiots forgotten

Have these idiots forgotten already? 

Blagojevich has been accused of extorting the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial staff by holding up state aid to Wrigley Field, also owned by the Tribune.

If you take money from the government, they own you. Government money always has 'conditions'...and they change over time. 

LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.

→ Bullseye Tailgunner

Exactly the same reason newspapers should not be allowed a Government bailout.

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

 Thank you. :) Hell,

 Thank you. :)

Hell, even if governments don't interfere with newspapers' content or internal policies (and we know that they will), who in their right mind would ever believe anything written by these papers anyway?

One of the left's biggest arguments for the Fairness (Censorship) Doctrine is that all the major media, especially Fox News, is owned and controlled by corporate cabals who dictate reporting.  (Evidence? Who needs it when you've got a big fat conspiracy theory?)

The mere appearance of corruption should be enough to taint such an outrageous idea as a government-media partnership. 

LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.

Local news is important

Yes, local news is important.

For that, I can watch the local Fox affliate or read some alternative newspaper that is often free. And, in fact, both Yahoo and Google news support a local option too.

But, if the local news is so biased that I avoid reading it, it doesn't help me know what local news there is regardless.

local news

 A) We have three local channels on TV that play the same game of build up demon-crats and tear down any Palins that come along. They spend eight local hours a day playing this game, very hard for the liberal losers to cry about loss of local coverage, more like loss of their sugar-daddies. I live in the media market ranked 100th in the country (small to medium?). One station  plays the news game at 6am, 12noon, 4pm, 5pm, and 7pm, the other two have morning shows and one hour evening news SHOWS .

 b. Or is local news so unimportant that we can do without it? again refer to previous answer.

 

C) people on our side know the news is nothing but democrat attack dogs, let them die of the poison they spew.

Remember the republican prosperity 94-06,

As the democrat depression deepens 06-??

In fact, the more I think about it ....

.... the more I believe that the local pols and power brokers should be rooting for the newspapers to die, so that they won't be held accountable until a viable substitute comes about, which may never happen.

Take to the streets to halt newspaper bailout!

This crap has gone far enough!  Why keep bailing out businesses with antiquated business models?  This is OUR money!  If they try to bail out newspapers, we need to take to the streets!  What will it take for us to stand up for ourselves??

Jeff Lebowski

www.angrywhitedude.c...

This was my inspiration.

An earlier Newsbusters story about bailing out some small newspaper somewhere in New England was the impetus behind me registering as a commenter instead of being a troll.

At the time, I thought of one word. Pravda.

Hell, why not bail out the press? Goes along with the rest of our new Socialist Republic.

We have already nationalized the entire financial sector/banking/mortgage industry.

We have already nationalized most of the energy sector.

We have nationalized the vast majority of pre-college education and a good portion of college education.

We have nationalized most of the student loan industry.

We have nationalized the automobile industry.

We have nationalized all but a tiny sliver of the space industry.

We have more or less nationalized the commercial aerospace industry.

We have nationalized courts, law-enforcement, the military, and other emergency services (probably the few things that should be nationalized)

There are plans in progress to nationalize health care in general.

Why not go ahead and nationalize the media? 

 

good points legacy

i think you confuse 'troll' with 'lurker' though      

----- Radical  Liberal

→ Ultimate Hypocrisy!

A Free Press is guaranteed by our Constitution.  How many times has this been invoked?  Countless times.

Newspapers cannot possibly claim to speak for the people, nor claim fairness if they are monetarily beholden to the Government.

I don't think it's Constitutionally possible for the Government to brazenly purchase influence from a Free Press.

Now, let's talk about the terms and conditions of this bailout.

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

finance failure and propaganda

We've gone from capitalism to financing failure. Welcome to the depression.

During this time we'll need a constant source of propaganda telling us what didn't happen. How could we live without papers like the NY Times and their important stories? Think how bad it would be for terrorists not getting the information they need! Or even worse, where would we be without their constant lies of omission?

Personally I really miss living in a Free Republic, don't you? 

 The press needs to follow

 The press needs to follow the advice of the magic negro, change. Telling the truth and reporting rather than spouting the party line and offering opinion in lieu of facts would be a start.

 

not gonna happen

If the liberals get us non-liberals to finance their operations it's over. They will be fully protected from ever doing the right thing. Sorry for the pun.

THe press is in dire

THe press is in dire straights for the simple reason that they are producing a product that a person like me is not willing to lay down cash to purchase.

I am more likely to read a small town newspaper than the LAT, NYT, WASH POST etc simply because the local papers are more apt to produce information of value to me. They remember what is valuable rather than seek to shape my opinion.

The NYT, LAT, Wash Post etc need to file chapter 11 and revamp their business model - this time producing a viable product.

"The Newspaper Recovery Act of 2009"....

...is only a matter of time. Government millions [billions?] will give bureaucrats a seat at the editor's desk -- a situation that most newsrooms likely would not object, having observed their penchant for lefty fascisim...

You sir, are right.

I was a lurker, not a troll. Please accept one carbon-neutral biodegradable can of non-alcoholic free-trade beer.