Bailout for Big Journalism?

[Espy]

If Henry Waxman, Dem. Congressman of California, has his way.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.abd53d78e59f7fcdc66d97d5c358d985.ae1&show_article=1

So what do you think? Should the government shell out your money to prop up newspapers? Would that have an impact on the news they are reporting? Would it change the actual face of journalism any or the markets they are dealing with?

NPR had a great debate on this a few weeks back with proponents of both sides arguing very well. However, the one thing I kept hearing was the constant disdain by "real" journalists for web journalists/bloggers/anything that wasn't exactly what they did and I have to say, I personally have no issue with them being forced to figure out how they can survive without our tax dollars supporting their lumbering dinosaur. It's sad, I love newspapers, reading them, getting it in the am... but honestly it's just no the best medium for news anymore IMO.

What do you think?

 

[AshburnerX]

Why exactly would we need Big newspapers? What can they provide that the internet, independent newspapers, and TV don't already provide? (Other than provide jobs to writers and reporters who don't have "on-air charisma".)

 

[Dave]

Not just a bad idea but a REALLY BAD idea. There's a reason why newspapers are dying. Pouring money into them won't change it.

 

[MindDetective]

Let them crumble. This is the information age and other people are figuring out better ways to disseminate information than newspapers now. If they die, it won't kill the economy. I do without newspapers as is, so let them adapt or go extinct.

 

[Soliloquy]

I have no issue with any corporation having to figure out on its own what to do on its own to survive. And I say this as a recently-graduated journalism major.

Granted, I recently got an internship at a nonprofit journalism group, but still...

Of course, I think bailouts in general are a bad idea. They keep companies in business that don't know how to stay in business on their own.

 

[MindDetective]

I'm curious, espy, what were some of the arguments for propping them up?

 

[Iaculus]

So what's the downside of them actually being forced to compete without subsidies? I mean, surely it just means that journalism is changing medium more than anything else.

I would suggest that having the government subsidise them might compromise their integrity a bit... if I wasn't from the country that produced the BBC. It has its flaws, but that's not really one of them.

 

[drawn_inward]

Why not? GM and certain banks were handed butt-loads of cash. Everybody deserves a handout from China. We're already in debt up to our ears, what's a little more? It's just a wafer-thin bailout.

 

[Espy]

I'm curious, espy, what were some of the arguments for propping them up?

I can't remember the entire show but integrity of journalism and reporting mainly. Some talk about how "they were the professionals, the 'real' journalists" and without them you can't trust the validity and authenticity of the reporting.

 

[Dave]

It's just a wafer-thin bailout.

 

[drawn_inward]

Yes! Allegory +3

 

[MindDetective]

I'm curious, espy, what were some of the arguments for propping them up?

I can't remember the entire show but integrity of journalism and reporting mainly. Some talk about how "they were the professionals, the 'real' journalists" and without them you can't trust the validity and authenticity of the reporting.[/QUOTE]

And if newspapers fail do they turn into dust? I figured they would get jobs in the emerging internet journalism industry.

 

[AshburnerX]

I'm curious, espy, what were some of the arguments for propping them up?

I can't remember the entire show but integrity of journalism and reporting mainly. Some talk about how "they were the professionals, the 'real' journalists" and without them you can't trust the validity and authenticity of the reporting.[/QUOTE]

Actually, those "unwashed masses" are generally more valid than the professionals, as they provide a group consensus on the subject. This is ESPECIALLY helpful with critical analysis of movies, games, books, and music... something "official" reviewers aren't quite as good about (especially in the games industry, where good reviews are constantly tainted by Dev side shenanigans.)

 

[Fun Size]

As I recall, one big argument was budgeting. The crux was that a lot of journalism - particularly investigative journalism - relies on being able to bankroll the journalist until they break whatever lead they are currently following.

That said, I would argue that a bailout is pointless. Inability to adapt to changes in the business landscape is a pity, but that's how things work sometimes. Some will survive, some won't. Them's the breaks.

 

[RealBigNuke]

Kill the newspapers. Kill them with fire.

Next we can work on corporate 24 hour news networks! Then with Oprah gone people are actually going to have to search for and *think* about their news without having world views spoon fed to them by advertising agencies and political groups!

Actually it'd be a lot more likely that people wouldn't get their news from anywhere at all after that. But a man can dream.

 

[sixpackshaker]

The wonder of our nation is the independent press. Having a government controlled mouthpiece would be a determent to journalistic freedoms.

Now if newspapers die, we will lose the ability to follow stories in detail. No other source goes into the details of their topics like a newspaper.

We will only be left with a press that is more interested in who the world's best golfer is screwing, or who won the latest reality show.

 

[drawn_inward]

The wonder of our nation is the independent press. Having a government controlled mouthpiece would be a determent to journalistic freedoms.

Now if newspapers die, we will lose the ability to follow stories in detail. No other source goes into the details of their topics like a newspaper.

We will only be left with a press that is more interested in who the world's best golfer is screwing, or who won the latest reality show.

Or God forbid, Glenn Beck and Jon Stewart.

 

[RealBigNuke]

The wonder of our nation is the independent press. Having a government controlled mouthpiece would be a determent to journalistic freedoms.

Now if newspapers die, we will lose the ability to follow stories in detail. No other source goes into the details of their topics like a newspaper.

So, would you be for or against a bailout? With the bailout, they would be mouthpieces, no? Without, they are very likely to give up their ghosts within a decade or two.

We will only be left with a press that is more interested in who the world's best golfer is screwing, or who won the latest reality show

There is this beautiful, beautiful thing known as the internet.

 

[ThatGrinningIdiot!]

Damnit, quote fail.

The internet is indeed a beautiful thing, but it has a bi-polar personality.

 

[DarkAudit]

I say prop 'em up...

With Kurtz and Straub footing the bill.

 

[Iaculus]

The wonder of our nation is the independent press. Having a government controlled mouthpiece would be a determent to journalistic freedoms.

Again, check out the BBC. Not that I think the bailout's a good idea, mind, just saying that that particular argument's a bit shakier than you think.

 

[sixpackshaker]

The wonder of our nation is the independent press. Having a government controlled mouthpiece would be a determent to journalistic freedoms.

Again, check out the BBC. Not that I think the bailout's a good idea, mind, just saying that that particular argument's a bit shakier than you think.[/QUOTE]

I trust the BBC to get stories about South Asia and Africa right, but I still hold doubts on their domestic coverage.

We can't really get World News coverage on the US's Big 3 or the Cable Network giants either.

 

[Soliloquy]

The wonder of our nation is the independent press. Having a government controlled mouthpiece would be a determent to journalistic freedoms.

Again, check out the BBC. Not that I think the bailout's a good idea, mind, just saying that that particular argument's a bit shakier than you think.[/QUOTE]

I trust the BBC to get stories about South Asia and Africa right, but I still hold doubts on their domestic coverage.

We can't really get World News coverage on the US's Big 3 or the Cable Network giants either.[/QUOTE]

Just curious... what specifically makes you doubt the BBC's domestic coverage?

 

[Covar]

The wonder of our nation is the independent press. Having a government controlled mouthpiece would be a determent to journalistic freedoms.

Again, check out the BBC. Not that I think the bailout's a good idea, mind, just saying that that particular argument's a bit shakier than you think.[/QUOTE]

I point you toward the Fairness Doctrine.

 

[Krisken]

The wonder of our nation is the independent press. Having a government controlled mouthpiece would be a determent to journalistic freedoms.

Again, check out the BBC. Not that I think the bailout's a good idea, mind, just saying that that particular argument's a bit shakier than you think.[/quote]

I point you toward the Fairness Doctrine.[/QUOTE]
What does the Fairness Doctrine have to do with an independent press? Why did you even bring this up?

 

[sixpackshaker]

The wonder of our nation is the independent press. Having a government controlled mouthpiece would be a determent to journalistic freedoms.

Again, check out the BBC. Not that I think the bailout's a good idea, mind, just saying that that particular argument's a bit shakier than you think.[/QUOTE]

I trust the BBC to get stories about South Asia and Africa right, but I still hold doubts on their domestic coverage.

We can't really get World News coverage on the US's Big 3 or the Cable Network giants either.[/QUOTE]

Just curious... what specifically makes you doubt the BBC's domestic coverage?[/QUOTE]

Because there is no specific freedom of the press guarantee. There are topics that the Queen and the Parliament can "put out of bounds."

Over all they do a good job and all, but they are bought and paid for by the government. So they are not completely independent.

Just now the Queen is threatening the press with lawsuits over photographs of the Royal Family for the near future.

---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------

The wonder of our nation is the independent press. Having a government controlled mouthpiece would be a determent to journalistic freedoms.

Again, check out the BBC. Not that I think the bailout's a good idea, mind, just saying that that particular argument's a bit shakier than you think.[/quote]

I point you toward the Fairness Doctrine.[/QUOTE]
What does the Fairness Doctrine have to do with an independent press? Why did you even bring this up?[/QUOTE]

The US fairness doctrine is counter to an independent press. Because it forces a news source that uses the public airwaves to cover certain points of view.

 

[Krisken]

The wonder of our nation is the independent press. Having a government controlled mouthpiece would be a determent to journalistic freedoms.

Again, check out the BBC. Not that I think the bailout's a good idea, mind, just saying that that particular argument's a bit shakier than you think.[/quote]

I trust the BBC to get stories about South Asia and Africa right, but I still hold doubts on their domestic coverage.

We can't really get World News coverage on the US's Big 3 or the Cable Network giants either.[/quote]

Just curious... what specifically makes you doubt the BBC's domestic coverage?[/quote]

Because there is no specific freedom of the press guarantee. There are topics that the Queen and the Parliament can "put out of bounds."

Over all they do a good job and all, but they are bought and paid for by the government. So they are not completely independent.

Just now the Queen is threatening the press with lawsuits over photographs of the Royal Family for the near future.

---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------

The wonder of our nation is the independent press. Having a government controlled mouthpiece would be a determent to journalistic freedoms.

Again, check out the BBC. Not that I think the bailout's a good idea, mind, just saying that that particular argument's a bit shakier than you think.[/quote]

I point you toward the Fairness Doctrine.[/quote]
What does the Fairness Doctrine have to do with an independent press? Why did you even bring this up?[/quote]

The US fairness doctrine is counter to an independent press. Because it forces a news source that uses the public airwaves to cover certain points of view.[/QUOTE]
I understand what the fairness doctrine is. It was and is a stupid idea. What I don't understand why it was even brought up.

 

[Covar]

Because even with our independent press we have things like the fairness doctrine that tried to work it's way through the Congress. So even though people in Britain think that the BBC works just fine for them over there, there is no way it could work here.

 

[Philosopher B.]

I dunno, guys, I think we should do everything this guy says:

 

[sixpackshaker]

I dunno, guys, I think we should do everything this guy says:

"HEE-HA-lways calls me Jack-Ass"

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

Actually, those "unwashed masses" are generally more valid than the professionals, as they provide a group consensus on the subject. This is ESPECIALLY helpful with critical analysis of movies, games, books, and music... something "official" reviewers aren't quite as good about (especially in the games industry, where good reviews are constantly tainted by Dev side shenanigans.)

I'd say that's such a minor and inconsequential aspect of what newspapers are about. Indeed, the entertainment and lifestyle sections of newspapers are exactly what I'm happy to let die. However, I want the news and investigative sections to survive, especially because there's nothing on the web or TV that comes close to matching the quality and depth offered by the better newspapers.

 

[strawman]

We're not using stone tablets anymore.

We're not using scribes anymore.

We're not using carrier pigeons anymore.

It's not a bad thing for a technology that was superceded to go away! It doesn't reflect on that technology, good or bad, that there are better means of disseminating information.

It is not possible for a newspaper to do everything that the internet does, while the internet can do everything the newspaper does. We're not losing anything by upgrading our nation to the next step.

The nice thing is that we don't require interoperability, so unlike the switch from analog to digital TV we don't need a congressional mandate, we don't need to invest in infrastructure, and we don't need to prop up the old technology. Let it slowly fade away.

The news organizations themselves have already adapted to the internet, and will continue to do so. Yes, the face of news will change. This too is normal.

Think about the difference between presidents of the US that were elected before radio, then after radio, and before TV then after TV - the means and mode of communication undoubtedly changes how people act and react to the world.

But that isn't good or bad - it just is.

No bailout is necessary. If people are asking for a bailout, it is only because they want to line their pockets before ditching the industry. If senators and representatives are offering bailouts it's only to keep their constituents, at least the VERY INFLUENTIAL ONES fat and happy.

 

[sixpackshaker]

What we lose are reporters. The AP and other news organizations that put free content on the web are not paying their reporters for articles that go online. They get payed when newspapers run the stories.

Free content will lead us to lose the reporters that go out into harm's way to cover a breaking story. They also will not be around to dig deeper, and do multiple stories on a single event. Watergate could not happen in the future. The TV stations will not spend the time to continue a developing story.

Good bye to the 5th estate. I'll miss ya.

 

[Soliloquy]

I'm hedging my bets on nonprofit journalism programs, such as voiceofsandiego.org. When reporting accurate news becomes a cause instead of a business, There's a chance things will end up a little better, I think.