Slashdot Mirror
Senator Proposes Nonprofit Status For Newspapers
The AP is reporting that a senator has introduced legislation that would allow struggling newspapers to operate as nonprofits, similar to the way public broadcasting works. "[Sen. Benjamin] Cardin [D-Md.] introduced a bill that would allow newspapers to choose tax-exempt status. They would no longer be able to make political endorsements, but could report on all issues including political campaigns. Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax-exempt, and contributions to support coverage could be tax deductible. Cardin said in a statement that the bill is aimed at preserving local newspapers, not large newspaper conglomerates. ... The head of the newspaper industry's trade group called the bill a positive step."
So in the US, we have the 1st Amendment which says this: "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; ..."
It seems to me that what this law would do is give a competitive advantage to those newspapers that avoid endorsing candidates.
Isn't that abridging the freedom of the presses that want to make political statements endorsing candidates? It basically says, "Don't make political endorsements, or else we'll tax you."
Why not just make everything tax exempt? Then everyone would be more profitable, not just the failed buggy-whip companies.
I think this is a really great idea. It forces them to be a little less biased, and it keeps well-written articles available. The natural beauty of print is that it's costly to publish, compared to digitally. This tends to force the writing to be polished, which online articles, blogs specifically, never achieve. There's just something nice about reading an article someone else has proofread before you. It's jarring to read blogs that have foregone this, as you tend to notice the little grammatical mistakes everywhere. Or worse, it's syntactically correct, but semantically rubbish.
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
>>>A somewhat more balanced media is in everyone's interest.
Yes it is, but "balanced reporting" is a myth. The reporters allow their own biases to sneak-into the articles. Not on purpose of course, but just as a natural consequence of being human. For example if you asked me to report on the Democratic Convention, it would probably be very negative since I don't like big-government parties. Vice-versa if I did a Libertarian Convention article, it would probably end up being a fluff piece. It's just natural bias.
I prefer reporters be honest about their views, even if those views are slanted, rather than pretend to be unbiased, which is a falsehood. Nobody is unbiased.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
That's bullshit, if a news organization cannot survive in the market it doesn't deserve to exist. We don't need another NPR-style organization. News is not Sesame St. for adults. The papers are facing the 21st century with a 19th century technology, WHAT DID THEY THINK WAS GONNA HAPPEN? Meanwhile, New York Times still makes me laugh every time someone links to it and it asks for registration, BS, I close the window right there. Drudge is 21st century news, adapt or die.
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
The problem is, the vast majority of newspapers are owned by giant conglomerates. Gannett and McClatchy just going to say, "Oh hey, lets dissolve!"? Don't think the CEO's with their 7 figure salaries are gonna get behind that one.
Anyway, even the papers that are already non-profit are taking it in the ass. Look at St. Pete. The industry has to successfully make a revenue transition from 1 medium to another without going bankrupt in the process, and it doesn't help that the web sucks for revenue. Look at all these huge, popular web 2.0 services that still haven't found a way to make a profit. The Ad revenue pie is the same size, but way too many people want a piece, and you don't get that natural geographic advantage that newspapers have traditionally enjoyed.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
The newspapers are not making money now, so having their advertising and subscription revenues tax exempt won't matter. The big difference would be they'd be able to get tax deductible donations.
Why do you think soliciting donations will make the media more balanced? As the mayor of Corruptville, I of course realize that we need balanced reporting in our fair town. I will even donate some of my embezzled funds towards that end - as long as the newspaper doesn't tell anybody about my embezzlement.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
The best part of Capitalism is letting bad business fail. If the newspapers can't fund themselves legitimately through voluntary commerce, like any other business, they need to fail, as they deserve.
With tax-exempt status, they exists solely at the mercy of government legislation. What are the chances they will criticize the government that grants them favored status?
This is a recipe for State control of news dissemination.
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
The two primary costs of operating a newspaper are (a) paying the reporters, and (b) printing papers. We all know subscriptions are down and that the medium is evolving so that only the largest national papers can afford to print copies. Also, readership in local areas doesn't really demand printed copies as much as they want access to the information. For example, one thing local reporters cover is town council meetings and police reports. Thanks largely to digital search mechanisms, it's way easier to grab this information from the pages of a reputable townie news service website than to sift through a printed paper.
So, I see the costs of printing a newspaper disappearing over the years and that leaves only the cost of paying reporters. My question is... what's to stop the small newspapers from firing the majority of their staff and operating like Internet newspapers with self-moderated volunteer staffs? All it'd take is to deploy Slashcode, buy-in from town administrators and business owners, and a critical mass of town residents to begin operating a near-free town news service.
Meanwhile, I see "tradition newspapers" as an occupation disappearing, regardless of tax exempt status or not.
And look at it this way... the newspaper profit model has been largely based on ad-revenue for so long that a simple "local" implementation of Craigslist could easily facilitate job postings, garage sales, and local advertising so that tiny, tiny charges for these would pay the small staff that's needed to maintain the hardware and post the most interesting stories on the mainpage.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't think balanced reporting is a myth, it just doesn't seem to exist anymore. It's supposed to be a news column, not an editorial. To use your example about reporting on the Democratic convention, why would it be so hard to report who was there, sequence of events, and what the person said. whether you agree with it or not shouldn't play any part in doing your job as a news reporter. What one side considers a joke the other side considers an insult..example being the 'lipstick on a pig' comment during the election. The quote should be in the NEWS article and the editorial should give the viewpoint that it was insulting or whatever they want to say. and yes it can be a natural bias that creeps through but then shouldn't the editor be demanding the reporters stick to the facts. if not then what good are they.
The thing is, if you give up trying to be unbiased, you get Fox News.
Even if it is a mostly unattainable goal, it's better to try and deliver an unbiased product.
I do admit, it'd be nice if a reporter would be open about their bias right from the start. The nice thing about the web (if any papers transitioned to it correctly, which, of course, none have) is that you could make that sort of information available in a reporters bio. Trusting your news source is important; nobody has time to fact check all their news.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Presumably the goal is to preserve newspapers as a necessary source of information gathering. The idea is that in the age of the internet, we face a free-rider problem and fundamental news gathering is less profitable. Ostensibly journalists are performing a public service.
But how well this proposed solution will address the real problem? There are lots of right-wing newspapers that are not profitable but they have dedicated corporate sponsors so they keep operating. Consider the Washington Times, or the Pittsburgh Tribune. If we let newspapers be non-profits we are giving a huge tax-break to Richard Mellon Scaife, and Rupert Murdoch, and Sun Myung Moon. All of the money these guy pump into their right-wing propaganda machines will be tax-deductible.
I want to save newspapers too, but this proposal will incentivize more propaganda than it will actual news.
The thing is, if you give up trying to be unbiased, you get Fox News.
Or the Economist. Bias is OK as long as you acknowledge it - does Fox still claim to be fair and balanced?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
You have to realize how desperate the newspaper industry has become. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer printed their last paper edition last week. They're just a web site now, and they distribute their news via Twitter. That's how far down they've come. The Detroit Free Press only prints on Thursday, Friday, and Sunday now. The San Francisco Chronicle may go next.
And those were once Great Metropolitan Dailies. Little papers go under every day.
Nothing is really replacing them. Blogs are mostly punditry; few have paid reporters. If anything, the future may be TV news presented via the Web. TV news has historically been time-limited, but that's not a Web problem.
I think that bias creeps in most often in the form of omission. To continue with the Democratic convention, for example, someone who supports the Democratic party may choose not to report so much on the protesters outside the venue, or place this coverage closer to the end of the article. Newspaper articles are limited in length, so only the "most significant" information makes it in. Often the selection of what is important (by the reporter or his editor) allows for bias to creep in, however unintentionally.
If the tax system was fair in the first place, no loopholes would be needed. Income tax is really unlawful. It punishes productivity and penalizes saving.
Umm... Arguably, without taxes and nothing backing the US dollar, inflation would spiral out of control and that would really punish savers.
Arguably, income tax is preferable over spending tax, because if you reward saving too much you end up with a deflationary death spiral which is what caused the great depression and would still punish people who saved their money because they'd probably be unemployed and have to spend those savings.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
The thing is, if you give up trying to be unbiased, you get Fox News, or CNN, or MSNBC, or Pravda.
Fixed that for you. Bias doesn't just swing to the right. A major complaint of a lot of people is that most of the media bias seems to be to the left.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
The problem is, the online news services are all leaching off the traditional media for their content.
I'm actually looking forward with mild amusement to the panic when the flow of content from the big boys ceases.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Dude, their slogan is "Fair and Balanced." I admit they're not trying to be unbiased, but they are definitely trying to pretend like they're unbiased, which is the worst of all worlds.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I can't resist: that's because reality has a well-known liberal bias. ;)
Reality Maintenance Group, Silver City Construction Co., Ltd.
Nonprofit isn't a single status. Certain nonprofits to which donations are tax-deductible for the donor have to avoid "substantial involvement" in politics, including explicit endorsements, to retain that particular status (Particularly, 501(c)(3) organizations, so called because their tax exemption is established in 26 U.S.C. sec. 501(c)(3)). When the group of people who make up a 501(c)(3) want to act collectively politically, they typically set up separate organizations which are also tax-exempt nonprofits, but to which donations are not tax-deductible for the donor, which can be substantially involved in politics.
Most tax-exempt nonprofits are not restricted in their political involvement at all. See, generally, 26 U.S.C. sec. 501 [excluding 501(c)(3)].
Furthermore, with regard to newspapers, any newspaper which chose to become a nonprofit (i.e., not to be operated for the benefit of private owners/shareholders) could do so now and become a 501(c)(3) now with the restrictions that would be imposed by this bill. So I don't see how this really provides any new options.
Not every report needs to be a 10 page listing of everything going on.
For example, why are protesters relevant? You're clueless if you don't get the idea that they are presenting an opposing viewpoint, but why do we need to know every anti-Democrat opinion there? If you want a story on it, it should be a SEPARATE story (or even editoral) and thus shouldn't be a part of the general convention coverage article. Thus omission isn't bias, it's proper reporting.
By your argument, failing to report the tin-foil hat conspiracy version of stories is biased omission. But what is the cutoff? Presenting "both sides of the story" isn't the basis of unbiased reporting, it is the basis of turning editorials into reporting when it should be left to the opinion pages. I don't need to read the conservative counter to a Democrat's speech in an article about the speech. That counterspeech should be its own story or in the OP-ED.
MSNBC and HNN have nearly the same format, a morning variety show with varied opinion, but definitely not a "just news" program, some number of hours of news readers and then opinion guys/gals for primetime.
Nobody from Fox News would ever claim that O'Reilly is a news man (well he might, who knows? His program clearly isn't a news program though, and even he'd say that) same with MSNBC, Olberman nas been very outspoken on the fact that's he's paid to give his opinion, that's the point of his show, and as such, it's not a news program. It was MSNBC that really botched it over the convention coverage and tried to use the prime-time opinion line up for news.
Bottom line though, and it affects papers too, people tend to like to read opinions and editorials and they seem to like to watch it more than they like real news. You non-profit either the papers or the broadcast news and you probably have to dump them. There is probably a greater problem here if you take a step back; ABC,NBC, and CBS have been scaling back news for decades, they're basically down to a 30 minute evening news broadcast and that's about it without some sort of entertainment/investigative journalism spin. More people want to watch Jeopardy than "The News." Making papers non-profit might be a good way to make them cover more news and to protect them a little bit, but it remains unclear to me that people want to actually read news, they kind of like how they get to pick the kinds of "news" they can read or watch on their own and listen to the bias.
Even the financial news has become a sham, and if there is ever something you should be able to report on without bias, it's the markets. They do more cheerleading than real news. They're poopooing Jon Stewart's criticism and he's the wrong messenger but his points are 100% valid. Honestly, I think a whole lot fewer people watch and you can hardly run a 24 network with real news, let alone the dozen or so that we've got. It's hard to put the horse back in the barn.
The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.
Sounds surprising right? The report eventually concludes to with that while most media leans left of center, they are almost all more moderate in comparison to our politicians.
And no offense but I take it you are not a reporter. The fact that you would be unable to provide an unbiased article on the DNC does not indicate that people trained in journalism would be unable to do the same. The ability to put aside personal beliefs is a skill that is stronger in some compared to others. Lawyers do it everyday for instance.
When everyone else in the world seems to have turned upside down, maybe it's time to look at your own orientation.
Truthfully, until the internet came along, we used to get most of our daily news filtered through some reporter and editor. Today, we can read the federal register, congressional web sites, get blogs from people in the middle of a war zone, and so on.
This is just like all the problems we're having with the RIAA, MPAA and others. Distributors do not have a monopoly on the news any more and they're losing out to people who want to get their information, movies, music, entertainment or whatever from the source.
I won't argue whether "the media" is biased or not. It's rapidly becoming irrelevant. And now my very own Senator Ben Cardin wants to prop them up with my tax dollars.
I have a better idea: let them die a normal, free-market death.
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
Have you ever read The Economist ? These guys are economic conservative, and social liberals. Pretty much the opposite of Fox News: they advocate gay marriage, abortion...
I find in particular that they try to separate facts from opinions, and to be reasonably pragmatic.
Sample of articles for this week:
Mr. Obama's first 2 months: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13362078
Religious people and death: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13315834
Funding impacting a research paper: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13361480
Online dating and the crisis: http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13381506
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.