T Nation

Newspaper Bailout


Hey, it's the least that Commander Hope'n'Change can do for them. After all, the media was responsible for getting him elected.


Nobody is surprised by this anymore. I don't even know what to do. I have already openly supported Ron Paul during the last presidential elections and I will support any small government proponents in future local, county, state and federal elections. What else can one do?



Government is open to controlling a media outlet? Unpossible!


Politicians already buy votes, why not media?


When is the Government going to stop bailing out failing businesses?


Obviously when they quit failing...so whenever government can make them make a profit.

I predict we are going to have new laws commanding everyone to receive "the paper".


Newspapers were failing in the best of times. Besides the huge waste of taxpayer dollars and further increase of inflationary forces, the government getting more involved with the media is extremely dangerous. All you need to do is look at government-run television in the UK and Canada to see that the stations become hardcore socialist propaganda machines. If the USA continues to be taken over by authoritarian socialists, Americans will have to start getting violent.


Most of them are press agencies for the White House and the DNC anyway....might as well get paid for it.

What's next with this administration?


Can you imagine the pressure this puts on the minority party? Do you really want to vote no? Memories can be very long when you're hoping for some positive press.


(Ummmm...what happened to my original post?)

Am I missing something?

I've read this 3 times; and its pretty obvious that the term "Bailout" is a term that has become an "evil buzz word", used to describe large outlays of Federal Funds (and to get people to read articles, obviously...)

Isn't what is being suggested is that newspapers be given "Non-Profit" status; NOT that the Government somehow artificially prop them up with money?

I certainly agree that when BLOGS and biased Websites and Talking Heads become our only source of news... we ARE in trouble...



By the way...

Most are already "Non-Profit" because of, in some cases, millions in monthly loses.



How is a newspaper any more legitimate than a blog?

Aren't all sources biased? I say the more choices the better -- blogs, newspapers, TV, radio, whatever...

I can offer a corollary to your above statement: when government controlled media (TV and radio) become our only source of news we are in trouble. This is especially the case when the government regulates internet media.

In the end if my only choice was either a newspaper or a million different blogs I'd take the million different blogs before newspaper any day.

The reason why newspapers are failing is because content is free and the newpapers have an overhead that blogs never will have.

Let 'em fuckin' fail!!!


WTF, Lift! Don't burst a blood vessel!

The newspapers ARE failing; and most will be thing of the past in very short order.

So what's the issue?

And your Utopia of "A Million BLOGS", that somehow disseminate unbiased information?

Good luck. People STILL get their information from a select number of biased, well-controlled, media sources, newspapers or not. So don't fool yourself.

Is that the INDIVIDUALS fault? Perhaps. And I'm actually with you. There is NO WAY that I want to go "back" to information dissemination that was "Pre-Internet". But I also recognize that with every bit of information on the Internet comes 10 bits of MIS-information. You don't have to go any furthur than this Forum to realize that.

Now...back to the original point:

I am STILL not reading where the "Gov'ment" is going to dump millions into newspapers in order to artificially prop them up. The article just didn't say that. But it did use the term "bailout..." that obviously got people to read.

The strategy seems to have worked...



Well, whenever we talk about tax cuts for the rich, it somehow becomes giving money to the rich. Using that same logic, giving tax cuts to the newspaper industry is actually "giving" them money. Besides, this is flat out dangerous. How the hell do you oppose this without risking payback? There is an ethical hazard here that mustn't be allowed to manifest.


Very good points - and I'd add: what if a newspaper is doing fine and doesn't intend or need to restructure as a non-profit? Does that newspaper qualify for the tax break?

This is not only a "bailout" proposal - it is an attempt to rig the game so media are incentivized into moving away from being profit-driven companies.


Hey, guys!

I'm not a "newspaper" man...I'm just trying to understand what the article said and DIDN'T say...that's all.

I don't think that the struggle is with just the huge, media conglomerate newspapers. Many local ones are surviving just by a hair.

What I think they are ALL suffering from (and Lift alluded to it) is a significant paradigm shift in the ways news is delivered. You simply can't "bailout" an entity when such a shift is occuring.



LOL... For some reason, these paragraphs popped into my head from something I read long ago. I know, I know, how does it apply? Humor me....

At first Mussolini was supported by the Liberals in parliament and with their help he introduced strict censorship and altered the methods of election so that in 1925-1926 he was able to assume dictatorial powers and dissolve all other political parties. Mussolini had tight control over press and his amazing propaganda skills greatly manipulated the people causing minimal opposition. Any opposition was put down by an efficient secret police and the Fascist party militia, and the press was regimented. Mussolini was called Duce or leader by his followers. He held, besides the premiership, as many portfolios as he saw fit.

Mussolini had was very influential at his peak of power, he took over the ministries of the interior, of foreign affairs, of the colonies, of the corporations, of the army and the other armed services, and of public works to name a few. He was also head of the all-powerful Fascist party, which was formed in 1921, and the armed Fascist militia. He was able to succeed in keeping power in his own hands and preventing the emergence of any rival by controlling theses aspects. However, this regime he created was greatly corrupt.

Most everything about the parliamentary system was changed under the dictatorship and all law codes were rewritten. Teachers in schools and universities had to swear an oath to defend the Fascist regime and Mussolini personally chose newspaper editors.

To practice journalism at all, the writer had to possess an official certificate of approval from the Fascist party. The trade unions were also deprived of any independence and became part of a larger group with the aim to place all Italians in various professional organizations and ultimately under governmental control. Most industrial industries were transferred to private ownership but then placed rigid government control over and the change hurt the Italian economy.



I don't disagree - old-style newspapers are getting routed by new media, and their business models aren't generating profits for the simple fact that demand is declining for what they do.

Now, old-style newspapers have an inherent (if oft forgotten) market advantage: institutional confidence that they deliver the straight news professionally. That is what built them into the institutions they became - a certain integrity in a vital role in a republic.

Many of the big ones forfeited this advantage, both via political slant and rank sensationalism - and when they did, they laid the groundwork for blogs, citizen journalism, and smaller web-savvy outfits.