Does Journalism need a bailout?

[William Wallace]

I'm making my through The Declaration of Independents this week. The book's thesis is essentially that a decentralized society in which individuals are free to pursue their own interests is the key to producing everything that's awesome about life, and that this happens in spite of our centralized political system - it's libertarian porn basically. After an introduction, each chapter is dedicated to recent examples of why that thesis is correct, airline deregulation, expansion of the internet, evolution of the workplace, and so on.

But the one I want to discuss is journalism. The authors point out that the introduction of blogs, personal websites and data aggregators have reshaped how we consume all types of information, including the news. That has had a tremendous and negative impact on established daily newspapers, magazine and cable news networks. Naturally, people employed by those media outlets are now arguing that their industry needs a bailout - to preserve our democracy and the public's right to sound reporting, blah, blah,blah.

The plan mentioned in the book was originally proposed by The Nation magazine and would cost $60 billion over three years. It would provide tax credits for newspaper and magazine subscriptions, finance high school and college newspapers and provide each school with radios. Such ideas personally rouse my gag reflex, but what do you all think of the idea? Should we bailout journalism? 

[MasterShakezula]

No.  Traditional journalism as a big business is simply becoming outdated and unviable.  Let it die off to be replaced with more profitable and effective methods by the free market.

[rumborak]

The bailouts were done under the assumption that the businesses in question had received a temporary knockout because of the market collapse, but when nursed back to health would thrive again.
Print is dead because it was replaced by something better. It would be like giving a bailout to the steam engine.

rumborak

[PraXis]

No bailouts for ANYONE!

At some point, a telegraph became obsolete too.

[William Wallace]

To play devil's advocate, has anybody even considered the arguments for such a bailout?

[pogoowner]

To play devil's advocate, has anybody even considered the arguments for such a bailout?

What would those arguments be? What do traditional media actually offer that's superior to the forms that are taking over today? I'm sure they can come up with something, but I'm drawing a blank right now.

[jsem]

If the corporate news outlets were actually good and informative, I could see the reasoning behind a bailout.

But as the corporate news media in the US is absolutely horrific, with no investigative journalism, no real reporting and just BS... there is NO reason for a bailout.

[William Wallace]

To play devil's advocate, has anybody even considered the arguments for such a bailout?

What would those arguments be? What do traditional media actually offer that's superior to the forms that are taking over today? I'm sure they can come up with something, but I'm drawing a blank right now.

It's hard for me to say, because I think the arguments are crap, but they're along the same arguments in support the endowment for the arts: timely, objective news is a public that must survive regardless of the media's ability to earn a profit. It's a spin off of saving the X industry.

[GuineaPig]

The CBC provides the best news in my country. 

[Sigz]

timely, objective news is a public that must survive regardless of the media's ability to earn a profit.

I'd actually agree with that, but aren't these companies going under because they're not able to offer that as well as other news mediums?

[William Wallace]

timely, objective news is a public that must survive regardless of the media's ability to earn a profit.

I'd actually agree with that, but aren't these companies going under because they're not able to offer that as well as other news mediums?

Why? There almost limitless sources of reliable news and commentary. Especially with blogs these days you can read expert opinion on whatever issue you want, without first having it filtered through a daily paper or cable news show.

[Sigz]

timely, objective news is a public that must survive regardless of the media's ability to earn a profit.

I'd actually agree with that, but aren't these companies going under because they're not able to offer that as well as other news mediums?

Why? There almost limitless sources of reliable news and commentary. Especially with blogs these days you can read expert opinion on whatever issue you want, without first having it filtered through a daily paper or cable news show.

Sorry, I guess my post was unclear, but that's exactly what I'm saying. I agree with that quote in that good news is something the public needs to have, but there's no reason to prop up these companies when there's a hundred other ways to get that information.

[Scheavo]

timely, objective news is a public that must survive regardless of the media's ability to earn a profit.

I'd actually agree with that, but aren't these companies going under because they're not able to offer that as well as other news mediums?

Why? There almost limitless sources of reliable news and commentary. Especially with blogs these days you can read expert opinion on whatever issue you want, without first having it filtered through a daily paper or cable news show.

I think this is a double edged sword, because the number of blogs, and the ability to find an expert opinion, not only for any issue, but for any side of an issue. Also, blogs, for the most part, don't really seem to do any investigating. They report and comment, but they rarely produce anything of their own right.

But no, I don't support a bailout. I'm not sure what the solution is to the problem journalism is facing, because a lot of it has to do with a public which doesn't seem to care all that much about quality journalism, only sensationalism and entertainment.

[William Wallace]

timely, objective news is a public that must survive regardless of the media's ability to earn a profit.

I'd actually agree with that, but aren't these companies going under because they're not able to offer that as well as other news mediums?

Why? There almost limitless sources of reliable news and commentary. Especially with blogs these days you can read expert opinion on whatever issue you want, without first having it filtered through a daily paper or cable news show.

Sorry, I guess my post was unclear, but that's exactly what I'm saying. I agree with that quote in that good news is something the public needs to have, but there's no reason to prop up these companies when there's a hundred other ways to get that information.

Cool. My misunderstanding.

timely, objective news is a public that must survive regardless of the media's ability to earn a profit.

I'd actually agree with that, but aren't these companies going under because they're not able to offer that as well as other news mediums?

Why? There almost limitless sources of reliable news and commentary. Especially with blogs these days you can read expert opinion on whatever issue you want, without first having it filtered through a daily paper or cable news show.

I think this is a double edged sword, because the number of blogs, and the ability to find an expert opinion, not only for any issue, but for any side of an issue. Also, blogs, for the most part, don't really seem to do any investigating. They report and comment, but they rarely produce anything of their own right.

But no, I don't support a bailout. I'm not sure what the solution is to the problem journalism is facing, because a lot of it has to do with a public which doesn't seem to care all that much about quality journalism, only sensationalism and entertainment.

I don't think that's correct. There are many blogs like you describe, mine's in that category, but there many good ones that exist to break stories and otherwise feel the void left by lousy papers.

[Scheavo]

Eh, there are some okay newspapers and newscasts out there as well - but the majority of them suck. It makes the national debate suffer, because while you may read the good ones, I'd garner most people don't.

They may be filling the void, but I don't think it's filled yet. I could very well be behind the times, but it's rather hard keeping up with something as vast as the internet, with all of it's blogging communities, and availability of opinion.

Oh, I thought I would just say that not all newspapers do poorly. My local newspaper does rather well on it's own (it's owned by a larger newspaper company so it see's little of it's own profits). It's a problem with demand, which is frightening.

[Chino]

I find almost no need for newspapers anymore. I barely read them. Most of the information in them these days is related to local stuff, which honestly I could care less about. Nothing but stories about car accidents, lost pets, whos being racist, and people falling off balconies. As for magazines, I still really enjoy National Geographic and Popular Science, but I don't think thats considered "news" It's similar to the whole bailing out the libraries because the internet happens to be a much more convinient way of obtaining information or doing research. With time some things die, newspapers and similar media are next on the list. No point in wasting money trying to save them.

[rumborak]

The one thing I'm a bit concerned about with the new media though is this "opinion shopping". People will just read the news that tells them what they want to heard. That's always been going on for sure, but I think the new media, having no journalistic standards at all, blatantly tells people what they want to hear.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

but I think the new media, having no journalistic standards at all, blatantly tells people what they want to hear.

rumborak

The same point I made to scheavo above applies here. Without a doubt you can find page view chasers, but that doesn't describe everybody that belong to the new media category. And I think daily papers, magazines, radio, all old media have that flaw. It's just that the internet has made the biases more obvious.

[Scheavo]

but I think the new media, having no journalistic standards at all, blatantly tells people what they want to hear.

rumborak

The same point I made to scheavo above applies here. Without a doubt you can find page view chasers, but that doesn't describe everybody that belong to the new media category. And I think daily papers, magazines, radio, all old media have that flaw. It's just that the internet has made the biases more obvious.

More obvious, and pervasive. Google actually gives you specialized results, so if you try and use Google to look up a news story, it's most likely going to tell you what you want to here. There really isn't much of a backlash on the internet for false claims, rumors, etc. It allows for shit to spread that shouldn't be spreading, things like Obama being a Muslim, or Obama aiding some African dictator. Since the internet is extremely cheap, there are no market forces to create the quality that we love and need.

[William Wallace]

but I think the new media, having no journalistic standards at all, blatantly tells people what they want to hear.

rumborak

The same point I made to scheavo above applies here. Without a doubt you can find page view chasers, but that doesn't describe everybody that belong to the new media category. And I think daily papers, magazines, radio, all old media have that flaw. It's just that the internet has made the biases more obvious.

Just like any other service, it's demand that drives google results. The problem you point, which I agree is a serious problem, is the general dip-shittery of the populace. I'm not quite sure how to fix that.
More obvious, and pervasive. Google actually gives you specialized results, so if you try and use Google to look up a news story, it's most likely going to tell you what you want to here. There really isn't much of a backlash on the internet for false claims, rumors, etc. It allows for shit to spread that shouldn't be spreading, things like Obama being a Muslim, or Obama aiding some African dictator. Since the internet is extremely cheap, there are no market forces to create the quality that we love and need.

[Super Dude]

No bailouts for ANYONE!

At some point, a telegraph became obsolete too.

Hey, guess what?  So did coal!  And oil's on its way out too!  Guess we shouldn't bail those out either...

[William Wallace]

No bailouts for ANYONE!

At some point, a telegraph became obsolete too.

Hey, guess what?  So did coal!  And oil's on its way out too!  Guess we shouldn't bail those out either...

But nobody has to bail those out - only pretend energy sources like solar and wind power.

[Super Dude]

You mean those pretend energy sources that, if not for America's heavy coal and oil subsidies, would be immensely competitive by now?

They may not have the energy density of dirty sources, but they'll last a helluva lot longer and will be a lot more economic. Plus I can't think of a single country we need to piss off to get them.

[King Postwhore]

I am not for any bailout whatsoever.  That being said, government should look for alternative energy & I have no problem with that.

No I was the lunch and pale guy who always bought the newspaper.  I've stopped buying them about 3 years ago.  The internet has made it obsolete.  I have no problem with that.

[Super Dude]

I am not for any bailout whatsoever.  That being said, government should look for alternative energy & I have no problem with that.

Algae power.  It's gonna be big.

[William Wallace]

You mean those pretend energy sources that, if not for America's heavy coal and oil subsidies, would be immensely competitive by now?

They may not have the energy density of dirty sources, but they'll last a helluva lot longer and will be a lot more economic. Plus I can't think of a single country we need to piss off to get them.

Again, there's a big difference between a tax break, giving a company back some of the money they actually earned, and a subsidy, which diverts money from people who've earned it to others that haven't, and can survive without it. But I digress. Back to journalism.