Will the media be bailed out?
The coming push to subsidize the liberal media with tax money.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102203960_Comments.html
***
"The problem is that newspaper newsrooms, once packed with reporters, are disappearing, and neither broadcast nor digital media are filling the void."
First off, I'd argue that digital media is not filling the void. Many sections have supplanted the print. Classifieds are not much better served by Craigslist - and cheaper. National and global news is addressed quite well via the internet. Local news is pretty prevalent on my iPhone. In fact, I didn't start reading my newspaper much until I started viewing the articles online via the Associated Press' application. I have Dilbert in my RSS reader.
So I'd argue that what we're really in is a transitional period from print to digital. And of course there will be some who will not move to digital - largely the older generations. But for the rest the transition is coming, and it's happening now.
***
"Obama is right when he says that finding a model to pay journalists to question, analyze and speak truth to power "is absolutely critical to the health of our democracy.""
Maybe if the media actually questioned, analyzed and spoke the truth it would not be in such a critical state. But the media which has long been filled with bias has become increasingly one-sided. In taking such biased positions and ostracizing and offending 50% of their potential readership the media has sealed their own fate.
Further add the fact that few in the media even research their articles. Take for example how many times the media refers to some firearm as an AK or fully automatic incorrectly. Do your research if you want respect. Stop just politicking soundbites.
"For the first time in American history, we are nearing a point where we will no longer have more than minimal resources (relative to the nation's size) dedicated to reporting the news."
I would argue that for the first time in nearly a century we are nearing a point where we have an abundance of resources dedicated to reporting the news.
Rather than one or two dedicated papers in a given town or journals on a given issue. We now have thousands of blogs, online papers and franchises reporting. Instead of having photographers taking pictures after the events we have onsite photographers capturing the events as they happen with their cell phones.
***
"The prospect that this "information age" could be characterized by unchecked spin and propaganda, where the best-financed voice almost always wins, and cynicism, ignorance and demoralization reach pandemic levels, is real."
This is EXACTLY what many people feel has been going on for decades. I'll give a great case in point. How well did the mainstream media with their leftist bias cover the shooting and murder of pro-life protestors. How did that coverage compare to the incidents where abortion doctors were killed. Why was coverage literally a 1-2 magnitude in difference. The murder of the pro-life protestors nearly ignored by the media. A side note tucked away in back pages.
So the real issue is that the expansion of media and reporting is affecting the ability of the left to control spin, and to deride all opposition with cynicism.
***
"Our Constitution is, the Supreme Court reminds us, predicated on the assumption of an informed and participating citizenry. If insufficient news media exist to make that a realistic outcome, the foundation crumbles."
We've already concluded it is not insufficient. If anything we are leaving a period of insufficiency for more coverage.
A moving away from the mega newspaper and media conglomerates back to the "pamphleteers" such as Thomas Payne and Benjamin Franklin - only now they're called "bloggers".
***
"Obama, the former constitutional law professor, says, "Government without a tough and vibrant media is not an option for the United States of America.""
Where is this so called tough media? You mean like CNN which leapt to defend Obama from a mild Saturday Night Live skit?
***
"Unfortunately, the marketplace now eliminates journalism jobs at a rate in excess of 1,000 a month -- with little concern for the president's view."
The marketplace is eliminating many industry jobs at such rates.
***
"This leaves one place to look for a solution: the government."
Excuse me...just because you eliminated two possibilities does not equate to the only option being the government.
In fact there are multitudes of options. These include the following:
> Innovate - utilize new technologies, mediums and methods
> Capitalize - I know, the media thinks capitalism is an evil word. But maybe if you put aside personal bias and provide honest reporting without constant editorialization and denigration of opposing view points you might increase your market pool.
> Diversify - Perhaps big conglomerate 100 yr old Newspapers are not the best choice for media and reporting. Maybe more power in individuals and less in conglomerates is a more viable answer. Perhaps that is why many are turning to blogs for their relevant news input.
***
"The First Amendment necessarily prohibits state censorship, but it does not prevent citizens from using their government to subsidize and spawn independent media."
I wil grant you one option for subsidizing the media. And that would be to eliminate taxation on the 1st Amendment. In other words, newspapers, news channels and even bloggers would not be taxed on those aspects which are directly related to news and press. But realize such an tax abatement should probably be available for the 2nd Amendment as well.
***
"Indeed, the post-colonial press system was built on massive postal and printing subsidies. The first generations of Americans never imagined that the market would provide sound or sufficient journalism. The notion was unthinkable."
Please provide some evidence to substantiate this statement. If you are referring to the postal system being subsidized so that the cost of delivering a package to an rural location was the same as an urban. That was a subsidization that applied to all aspects of delivery. And not specifically to the press.
***
"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"
Really, and what might these subsidies be. Can you give specifics. Or are you simply accounting the total cost of the post office system as a subsidy to the media.
***
Lastly, will these subsidies be given to all viewpoints. Will conservatives like Glenn Beck be granted subsidy or only people who adhere to the traditional leftist bent of the mainstream media?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102203960_Comments.html
***
"The problem is that newspaper newsrooms, once packed with reporters, are disappearing, and neither broadcast nor digital media are filling the void."
First off, I'd argue that digital media is not filling the void. Many sections have supplanted the print. Classifieds are not much better served by Craigslist - and cheaper. National and global news is addressed quite well via the internet. Local news is pretty prevalent on my iPhone. In fact, I didn't start reading my newspaper much until I started viewing the articles online via the Associated Press' application. I have Dilbert in my RSS reader.
So I'd argue that what we're really in is a transitional period from print to digital. And of course there will be some who will not move to digital - largely the older generations. But for the rest the transition is coming, and it's happening now.
***
"Obama is right when he says that finding a model to pay journalists to question, analyze and speak truth to power "is absolutely critical to the health of our democracy.""
Maybe if the media actually questioned, analyzed and spoke the truth it would not be in such a critical state. But the media which has long been filled with bias has become increasingly one-sided. In taking such biased positions and ostracizing and offending 50% of their potential readership the media has sealed their own fate.
Further add the fact that few in the media even research their articles. Take for example how many times the media refers to some firearm as an AK or fully automatic incorrectly. Do your research if you want respect. Stop just politicking soundbites.
"For the first time in American history, we are nearing a point where we will no longer have more than minimal resources (relative to the nation's size) dedicated to reporting the news."
I would argue that for the first time in nearly a century we are nearing a point where we have an abundance of resources dedicated to reporting the news.
Rather than one or two dedicated papers in a given town or journals on a given issue. We now have thousands of blogs, online papers and franchises reporting. Instead of having photographers taking pictures after the events we have onsite photographers capturing the events as they happen with their cell phones.
***
"The prospect that this "information age" could be characterized by unchecked spin and propaganda, where the best-financed voice almost always wins, and cynicism, ignorance and demoralization reach pandemic levels, is real."
This is EXACTLY what many people feel has been going on for decades. I'll give a great case in point. How well did the mainstream media with their leftist bias cover the shooting and murder of pro-life protestors. How did that coverage compare to the incidents where abortion doctors were killed. Why was coverage literally a 1-2 magnitude in difference. The murder of the pro-life protestors nearly ignored by the media. A side note tucked away in back pages.
So the real issue is that the expansion of media and reporting is affecting the ability of the left to control spin, and to deride all opposition with cynicism.
***
"Our Constitution is, the Supreme Court reminds us, predicated on the assumption of an informed and participating citizenry. If insufficient news media exist to make that a realistic outcome, the foundation crumbles."
We've already concluded it is not insufficient. If anything we are leaving a period of insufficiency for more coverage.
A moving away from the mega newspaper and media conglomerates back to the "pamphleteers" such as Thomas Payne and Benjamin Franklin - only now they're called "bloggers".
***
"Obama, the former constitutional law professor, says, "Government without a tough and vibrant media is not an option for the United States of America.""
Where is this so called tough media? You mean like CNN which leapt to defend Obama from a mild Saturday Night Live skit?
***
"Unfortunately, the marketplace now eliminates journalism jobs at a rate in excess of 1,000 a month -- with little concern for the president's view."
The marketplace is eliminating many industry jobs at such rates.
***
"This leaves one place to look for a solution: the government."
Excuse me...just because you eliminated two possibilities does not equate to the only option being the government.
In fact there are multitudes of options. These include the following:
> Innovate - utilize new technologies, mediums and methods
> Capitalize - I know, the media thinks capitalism is an evil word. But maybe if you put aside personal bias and provide honest reporting without constant editorialization and denigration of opposing view points you might increase your market pool.
> Diversify - Perhaps big conglomerate 100 yr old Newspapers are not the best choice for media and reporting. Maybe more power in individuals and less in conglomerates is a more viable answer. Perhaps that is why many are turning to blogs for their relevant news input.
***
"The First Amendment necessarily prohibits state censorship, but it does not prevent citizens from using their government to subsidize and spawn independent media."
I wil grant you one option for subsidizing the media. And that would be to eliminate taxation on the 1st Amendment. In other words, newspapers, news channels and even bloggers would not be taxed on those aspects which are directly related to news and press. But realize such an tax abatement should probably be available for the 2nd Amendment as well.
***
"Indeed, the post-colonial press system was built on massive postal and printing subsidies. The first generations of Americans never imagined that the market would provide sound or sufficient journalism. The notion was unthinkable."
Please provide some evidence to substantiate this statement. If you are referring to the postal system being subsidized so that the cost of delivering a package to an rural location was the same as an urban. That was a subsidization that applied to all aspects of delivery. And not specifically to the press.
***
"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"
Really, and what might these subsidies be. Can you give specifics. Or are you simply accounting the total cost of the post office system as a subsidy to the media.
***
Lastly, will these subsidies be given to all viewpoints. Will conservatives like Glenn Beck be granted subsidy or only people who adhere to the traditional leftist bent of the mainstream media?