Slashdot Mirror
Journalists Looking For Government Money
We've been following the ongoing struggles of the print media, watching as some publications have died off and others have held to outdated principles and decried the influence of the internet. A side effect of this has been many journalists put out of work and many others fearful that informed reporting is on its way out as well. Now, an editorial in the Washington Post calls for a solution journalists would likely have scoffed at only a few years ago: federal subsidies. Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols write, "What to do? Bailing out media conglomerates would be morally and politically absurd. These firms have run journalism into the ground. If they cannot make it, let them go. Wait for 'pay-wall' technologies, billionaire philanthropists or unimagined business models to generate enough news to meet the immense demands of a self-governing society? There is no evidence that such a panacea is on the horizon. This leaves one place to look for a solution: the government." They hasten to add, "Did we just call for state-run media? Quite the opposite."
In norway print media is getting significant goverment subsidies. The consequence is that rather than having media which is a watchdog over goverment, they have become a shill of the leftist 'big-goverment' political parties. (Since these are the parties that will guarantee their continued pipe into taxpayer money)
Every time somone brings up the question of subsidies you can trust that every newspaper will write long editorials why they need to keep getting money.
Particularly aggravating is the fact that a small selection of newspapers are getting preferential treatment (more money than others). These papers just happen to be the papers that used to be the publishing fronts for four leftist political parties. They claim to be independent of cource, but it won't take much reading to realize just how skewed their presentation really is.
So just take a look around and you will quickly find good reasons why not to start subsidizing the press.
>>>The broadcast spectrum monopolies that CBS,NBC,ABC don't pay a cent for
False. I wish people would stop repeating this oft-stated lie. The ~2000 TV stations plus ~10,000 lowpower/clear air neighborhood stations all pay a lease for their spectrum (called a license fee).
>>>plus the entire copyright system
On this we agree. The original version in the 1790 Act was reasonable - 14 years of monopoly helped the authors stand on their own feet and earn money from their labor. Today's 105-year span is ridiculous. It's like creating a welfare state where an author pen a best-seller in his 20s, and then sit on his ass for the rest of his life, signing books, and collecting the residuals. (cough J.K.Rowlings). The rest of us poor slobs have to work 'til we're 70 or 80.
14 years plus a possibility for renewal (28 years total) is long enough.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The BBC is the single best news organization in the world, full stop. Nobody else comes close for global reach and insight. It receives "government" money, i.e. the TV license fee. As a result, it is required by law to be politically neutral, which is one of the best things about it. (So too, is NPR, and if you think NPR is biased, as many conservatives do, it just shows where YOU stand.)
Because the BBC is government funded it is watched like a hawk by everybody -- the party in power, the party in opposition, the taxpayers' lobby, and so on. It just cut out 20% of its own management thanks to public pressure.
It's not perfect; there is waste and abuse at times. But it beats the hell out of any American news organization whatsoever.
I piss off bigots.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
>>>250 years ago, there were no "newspapers". They were technologically impossible, and demographically unreadable.
That's only true if you completely-and-totally ignore the existence of founding father Benjamin Franklin. He ran a weekly Philadelphia newspaper for several decades, and became so rich he was able to retire at age 40 (circa 1750). Granted he also earned money from publishing other people's books, but to say newspapers were not possible is an untruth.
I bet the major cities of Europe also had newspapers in the 1700s.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>[DNC-NBC] isn't a real news organisation not because it is right wing, but because it doesn't really care about actual truth, it just broadcasts whatever it likes regardless of the facts.
>>>
Fixed. After all it was MS-NBC that showed a man toting a rifle at a presidential protest and had their reporters wax eloquently about "white racists who fear having a black president" for 5 solid minutes.
Turns-out the video was creatively-edited. The rifle-carrying protester was black. MSNBC was guilty of reporting fake news, altering video, instilling fear amongst blacks, hate speech about whites ("racists"), and creating propaganda. And the rifle-guy was actually a black man! - link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI
Unbelievable.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall