Freedom of the Press. indeed.

[TE999]

Oh, like you didn't know this wasn't coming along soon.

The New York 'Pravda'? Chicago 'Sun- Izvestia'?

 

[Liar]

Paranoid much?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Doesn't that knee get tired of jerking?

 

[TE999]

Paranoid much?

Only when there's the spectre of a state controlled media rearing it's ugly head. When you dance with the devil, he calls the tune. The key words here are 'non-profit'.

We already have banks, insurance companies and auto manufacturers into the government for billions and they're being told both indirectly and directly what to build and what their executives and workers should be paid. If the newspapers get a bailout, who's to say the same malignant influences won't be controlling them?

Of course they're pretty much on Obama and the Dems team anyway, so this may just be a formality.

 

[TE999]

Doesn't that knee get tired of jerking?

Think of it as an early warning.

ETA: I find this comment interesting coming from someone who sees a homophobe behind every tree.

 

[Liar]

We've had subsidies for newspapers for decades over here. Without it, there would be very little free press and quality political reporting, since only the tabloids can sustain themselves financially. Most papers recieving the subsidies are conservative and libertarian morning papers, who have been the most solid opposition towards the leftist government that feeds them.

Funny, they don' t seem to turn into the Government Information Bureau.

You know why, because we have, like, laws and stuff, protecting their right to do as they please. Don't you have, like, laws and stuff? I heard this buzz about something called a 'constitution' that might protect the freedom of the press. I guess that's just a rumor, eh?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Think of it as an early warning.

ETA: I find this comment interesting coming from someone who sees a homophobe behind every tree.

Have you confused me with SR71plt perhaps?

Or do you figure racism, chauvinism, and homobigotry are all the same thing?

Apples and oranges look identical to you, then?

 

[DeeZire]

What's the alternative, TE999? How do we keep newspapers afloat? Any suggestions? Or are newspapers expendable in your world of Right Wing propaganda?

 

[TxRad]

Paranoid much?

Ya really want to make him paranoid? Ask him who owns all the newspapers, TV networks, and radio stations in this country. The list is short and will scare the hell out of him.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

As I understand it, non-profits lose their non-profit tax status if they advocate partisan results such as endorsing political candidates. So a bailout may end up muzzling newspapers. They'll get a welfare check to print movie times and sports.

Newspapers are in trouble becuz they parrot The New York Times, the Democrat Party, and the Usual Subjects' deluded opinions about the world. Virtually every news story is an op-ed piece.

Left alone, these rags will go bankrupt and other newspapers will replace them, and feature material people actually want to read.

 

[3113]

Ya really want to make him paranoid? Ask him who owns all the newspapers, TV networks, and radio stations in this country. The list is short and will scare the hell out of him.

Wish it would, but probably it won't. See, it' perfectly ok for one person to have a total monopoly on the press--one corporation to own them all, because that one guy wouldn't possibly put out propaganda because he wants to make money and, um, real news makes money (has no one seen Citizen Kane?).

But the government is always going to tell newspapers what to do if it give them a loan to stay afloat cause the government always does that...and cause newspapers are so important to the news of this country that they need a loan to stay afloat...

Um, wait, I'm getting confused. No one's reading the newspapers, so they're sinking, which is why the need a loan, so there *might* be a government loan but this is bad because it will be a propaganda paper, but it's not that if it's run by a big corporation with one guy at the top who is already putting out propaganda on tv news.....

And most people are getting the news from tv or internet anyway which aren't owned by the government so what does it matter....? Someone help me out, please?

 

[R. Richard]

The newspapers in the US are in financial trouble and have been for some time. Obviously, people don't like what the newspapers print. Many people now get their information from the 'Net.

The underlying problem is that newspapers still remain THE source for local news and they still support the news feeds. The 'Net reporting depends upon the news feeds and newspaper provided local news for their information. Until someone finds a way for the 'Net blogs to financially support the news feeds and local news reporting, there will be a problem.

Perhaps the solution to the problem is for the print newspapers to find out what their readers want and provide that. One simple solution would be to get editorials off the front page and replace them with hard news. The editorials could then be moved back to the [you saw this coming] editorial page. Perhaps one step toward a solution would be to find any number of old style editors who grab reporters by the throat and tell the reporters, "I want news from you. If I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you."

Another thing that would help would be to include Page 3 girls in the morning newspapers. People want their newspaper to be upfront about things. The Page 3 girls got it upfront. Oh yeah!

 

[TE999]

It's entirely possible that this newspaper subsidy trial balloon will come to naught...but one never knows. Given the alternative sources of information available, the dead tree media is effectively obsolete except for...well...nothing except lining bird cages and cleaning windshields.

The average age demographic for newspaper readers is the same as for Buicks, Lincoln's, Poly-Grip, Maalox, Time magazine and The Evening News on ABC, CBS and NBC...60+. Unless the news is about Social Security and Medicare...no one's interested.

What I do find interesting, however, are some of the initial reactions to this post. "Paranoid", "Knee Jerk", "Big Corporation Monopolies", blah, blah, blah. It would seem that alternative opinions and speculation regarding events of the day aren't welcome to some of you. Well, get over it. This site's not anyone's exclusive domain, and snarky comments are more amusing than annoying.

It's a whole new ball game, so expect some line drives to center field. .

 

[trysail]

Most daily journalists are, at bottom, frustrated would-be dictators. The problem is that none of them has ever run anything bigger than a lemonade stand, very few of them are well-educated and none of them ( like ninety-five percent of the country's professional politicians ) has ever met a payroll. The fourth estate would greatly benefit from a dose of reality.

I read the dominant local newspaper every morning from the time I was seven or eight years old. There was a day when it was considered one of the best newspapers in the U.S.

As I reached middle age, that newspaper's efforts to be "all things to all people" produced an obvious and decidedly noticeable shift in its objectivity and in the makeup of its staff. Opinions that would formerly have found no place other than the editorial page began to appear in the articles. A generation of aging reporters with at least a passing notion of balanced reporting were replaced with obvious malcontents.

I ceased subscribing in 1988.

The multi-generational controlling families ( who would be hated and denigrated by 99% of Litizens as "old money elites" ) had always operated the firm in a decidedly paternalistic fashion. The union members ( be they pressmen or reporters ) were— as is so often the case— clueless, obstinate, suspicious, entitled, uneducable and uninformed dolts. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, after a century of ownership, the controlling families sold the operation. That's when things really got worse.

 

[Stella_Omega]

What I do find interesting, however, are some of the initial reactions to this post. "Paranoid", "Knee Jerk", "Big Corporation Monopolies", blah, blah, blah. It would seem that alternative opinions and speculation regarding events of the day aren't welcome to some of you. Well, get over it. This site's not anyone's exclusive domain, and snarky comments are more amusing than annoying.

It's a whole new ball game, so expect some line drives to center field. .

I quote;

The New York 'Pravda'? Chicago 'Sun- Izvestia'?

yeah, center. Uh huh.

If you want reasonable responses, start with reasonable statements.

 

[DeeZire]

Given the alternative sources of information available, the dead tree media is effectively obsolete except for...well...nothing except lining bird cages and cleaning windshields.

And where are all these alternative sources getting their information? From newspapers. You can't have a blogosphere if there are no facts to spin. The newspaper industry finds the facts and makes them available to the public, the alternative sources collect the facts and present them to their niche audience, leaving out the facts that would not make their readers or viewers happy.

I'm sure someone here can remember the quote about how democracy depends on an informed public. We have already seen the results of an uninformed public, or a brainwashed public, in the town halls and on talk radio. If all we have left is alternative sources (read: free on the internet, or free but biased over broadcast TV, or paid for but biased over cable) where will the facts come from? None of the alternative sources can be relied on to present unbiased facts.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

From what little I see in the blogosphere, there isn't much in the way of news, anyhow. That, I blame on the technology that allowed reporters to go directly to print and bypass those old-school editors R. Richard was talking about. It also explains where most of the feeble-minded opinions out there come from.

We're supposed to teach 'critical thinking' but if you sit and observe the average classroom you will see that any critical thought is quickly suppressed. I guess people are supposed to critically agree with whoever has access to the keyboard.

the same thing that happened to Trysail's paper happened to mine. It was taken over by a jerk in another part of the country who believed that they only 'national' newspapers were the WSJ and the NYT. Everyone else was supposed to be local. You can't very well have good journalism without management that is concerned with journalism over maximized stock value.

It's kind of the same thing as health insurance. So long as someone sees the business as a cash cow, what you get is bullshit. Should it be a centralized system? Of course not. Insurance was a cooperative venture away back in the distant past. I think it should have stayed that way.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The benefit of bankruptcy is how it purges the economy of unpopular and inefficient business models. Bailouts delay the corrective actions of failure. The newspaper business model doesnt work. Thirty years ago my town had 5 daily newspapers, another 6 weeklies, and an assortment of local sheets. Now we have 2 dailies, each trying to kill the other, and a market that declines every week.

 

[Pure]

note to TE

Only when there's the spectre of a state controlled media rearing it's ugly head. When you dance with the devil, he calls the tune. The key words here are 'non-profit'.

We already have banks, insurance companies and auto manufacturers into the government for billions and they're being told both indirectly and directly what to build and what their executives and workers should be paid. If the newspapers get a bailout, who's to say the same malignant influences won't be controlling them?
---

What I do find interesting, however, are some of the initial reactions to this post. "Paranoid", "Knee Jerk", "Big Corporation Monopolies", blah, blah, blah. It would seem that alternative opinions and speculation regarding events of the day aren't welcome to some of you. Well, get over it. This site's not anyone's exclusive domain, and snarky comments are more amusing than annoying.

the alternate speculation so called seems unaccompanied by any evidence. are the banks and auto makers owned by the govt? what exactly has been dictated to them that is 'malignant influence', as opposed to balance your books, keep them honest?

Obama believes in private ownership, as witness the health plan which will have a small or no 'public' component.

here's an alternate speculation. what are YOUR sources? Rush? Fox? Weekly Standard, Malkin,Drudge?

(they aren't shut down, are they)/

all these are faux right corporate endeavours. while riling up a certain component they support the likes of Bush II. Faux is simply entertainment.
in several respects there are few diffs between the Weekly Standard and the New York Times. for all the rabble rousing and 'hate the gubmint' the former is equally dedicated to the status quo. Rush, the multimillionaire, has an act; the existing gov't and the US have been rather kind to him. He's simply a mainstreamer, a Republican party supporter, with some provocative one liners.

 

[trysail]

The benefit of bankruptcy is how it purges the economy of unpopular and inefficient business models. Bailouts delay the corrective actions of failure...

Amen.

In theory, that's exactly what bankruptcy is supposed to do. In practice, thanks to populist legislation, bankruptcy frequently has the opposite effect.

The trouble with The Bankruptcy Code is that it doesn't purge the economy. The populist thinking that underlies the Code allows failed businesses to continue to operate while they reorganize.

Rather than winnowing an industry of weak sisters, current bankruptcy law permits zombie companies to continue to operate under protection. I've witnessed this in numerous industries from airlines to the oil service business. It's a form of reverse Darwinism— survival of the least fit.

The full-blown, decade-long depression ( and I use that word intentionally because that's EXACTLY what it was ) that occurred in the oil services industry from 1986 through 1996 was a classic example. In the 1979-1985 period, petroleum prices had risen substantially ( all the way from $12/barrel to the then astronomical level of $38/barrel ) due to the Iranian Revolution and Saudia Arabia's willingness to act as OPEC's "swing producer."

As the direct result of higher petroleum prices, non-OPEC ( "NOPEC" ) producers invested scads of capital and brought on substantial amounts of production. By 1985, Saudi exports had declined significantly and the Sauds were tired of providing a price umbrella for the rest of the world while being played for the fool by its fellow OPEC members.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Int_oil2.gif

In 1986, the Sauds turned on the spigot and petroleum prices collapsed from $36/barrel all the way down to $6/barrel at the bottom.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Top_Oil_Producing_Counties.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/53/Nominalrealoilprices1968-2006.png

With the price collapse, exploration budgets were cut to the bone. In the preceding six years, the oil service industry had gone berserk ( just like American home buyers from 2002-2006 ) and had assumed that petroleum prices only moved in one direction- UP!

From 1979-1985, the industry had added enormous amounts of capacity ( largely funded by debt ). In the ensuing ten years, a substantial number of oil service companies filed for bankruptcy but the damn capacity never diminished because the law permitted the bankrupts to continue operating.

Almost needless to say, this drove the surviving companies batty because they were forced to compete with companies who were not required to meet their financial obligations. In effect and in actuality, the prudent and the responsible were punished while the profligate were rewarded.

There is little doubt that operation of The Bankruptcy Code substantially extended the length of the industry depression which continued for an entire decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oil_Prices_1861_2007.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_prices

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

My local paper did the unthinkable and confirmed that it and almost every media organization dissed the ACORN story, the Washingtron Protest, Jones, etc. but hyped the YOU LIE story and Carter's racism slander. They confirmed that FOX, indeed, carried the ball, making the discounted stories available to a national audience.

The same paper, in recentl times, fired 3 editors; one was black, one described himself as a socialist Jew, and one was from North Georgia and hated Southerners. If they'll fire the ACLU attorney who writes editorials the paper will be almost tolerable.

 

[Liar]

This site's not anyone's exclusive domain

Including yours.

If you say something silly. I will point and laugh. It is not me stifling your right to say what you want. It is me excersising my right to say what I want. And I expect no less of you.

 

[rgraham666]

The only place I regard as an Orwellian news service is The Ministry of Truth, I mean Fox News.

Who else suddenly makes Republicans Democrats when said Republican is caught in a scandal?

Who made Iraq disappear and replaced it with Egypt? http://bestsmileys.com/lol/1.gif

 

[DesertPirate]

What's the alternative, TE999? How do we keep newspapers afloat? Any suggestions? Or are newspapers expendable in your world of Right Wing propaganda?

The ones that are foundering have a strong left tilt. They might try writing what people will pay for like real jounalists, you know, things like facts without the opinion built into a so called "news" article. Opinion only belongs on the Op/Ed page, never the front page.
All media in the U. S. thinks everyone needs help, if they just prsented the facts on issues they might find that the majority can make their own decisions without help. (and yes, I did say all)

 

[Liar]

The ones that are foundering have a strong left tilt. They might try writing what people will pay for like real jounalists, you know, things like facts without the opinion built into a so called "news" article. Opinion only belongs on the Op/Ed page, never the front page.
All media in the U. S. thinks everyone needs help, if they just prsented the facts on issues they might find that the majority can make their own decisions without help. (and yes, I did say all)

Have you seen "news" television lately? Nowhere else is it more evident: There's no money in facts. They only thing that sells, is opinion.