| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Fifth Column | |
| Government Backing for Newspapers? | |
| 2009-01-01 | |
| NEW YORK (Reuters) - Connecticut lawmaker Frank Nicastro sees saving the local newspaper as his duty. But others think he and his colleagues are setting a worrisome precedent for government involvement in the U.S. press. The precedent is set,in places like the former Soviet Union and Cuba Nicastro represents Connecticut's 79th assembly district, which includes Bristol, a city of about 61,000 people outside Hartford, the state capital. Its paper, The Bristol Press, may fold within days along with The Herald in nearby New Britain. Pun intended. That is because publisher Journal Register, in danger of being crushed under hundreds of millions of dollars of debt, says it cannot afford to keep them open anymore. Nicastro and fellow legislators want the papers to survive, and petitioned the state government to do something about it. "The media is a vitally important part of America," he said, particularly local papers that cover news ignored by big papers and television and radio stations. You want government to do something about it? How about reducing the size of government just for starters.
An ultimately futile bailout, BTW. Government spending is almost always a wash, transferring money from one bucket to another with near zero benefit for any sector save for government. Relying on government help raises ethical questions for the press, whose traditional role has been to operate free from government influence as it tries to hold politicians accountable to the people who elected them. Even some publishers desperate for help are wary of this route. The problem for newspapers are strictly economic. There was a time 20 years ago in which newspapers could have set the stage for their survival in an increasingly digital world, by improving their very quality. Currently, in nearly every market I would place journalistic quality of enwspapers an order of magnitude above electronic media simply because newspapers do the hoofing needed to gather actual news and write about it cleanly, simply and without any personal or political bias. The point of no return blew by in 1995 and there is precious little they can do about it now. And no: a government bailout won't help anyone save for government. | |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #13 No no no no no fucking NO! No government funding of the press. It sslanted enough to ward collectivism and government power as it is now. And that's one of the reason;s its failing: its not reporting the news, its INTERPRETING the news, and failing to do its job in a democracy: *accurately* and *completely* informing the voting public. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2009-01-01 21:57 |
| #12 Nicastro and fellow legislators want the papers to survive, and petitioned the state government to do something about it. When I said "I know what he's trying to do", I sumrise it's not really so much about the papers' survival as it is their host communities' relevance. When Connecticut was first established, the center of power was set in the state government; towns exists at the sufferance of the state. Their only source of income outside of state largesse is property taxes, Which means there are some well-to-do areas, and some not-so well off areas (often times caused by self-inflicted wounds). Now the big push in Connecticut is 'regionalization', meaning that communities around the major cities (Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven) are supposed to be lumped in with, and forced to support, those urban sinkholes. Think of them as post-modern counties. If communities like Bristol and its surrounding areas can give the appearance that they are relevant and viable communities, they can argue that they shouldn't be lumped in with the Hartford-money-down-the-drain donor towns. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-01-01 21:35 |
| #11 They do a media bailout I'm done paying taxes. |
| Posted by: Hellfish 2009-01-01 21:09 |
| #10 Patterico has regularly taken down the LA Times for their rubbish and propaganda published as news (see today's column by Rosa Brooks on why Israel's at fault: "you can't bomb your way to peace, Israel), but his year-end review is worth a read as to why these unethical, untalented, political-hack, fuckers need to join the unemployment line, stat |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-01-01 17:03 |
| #9 Pappy some very talented people wrote for the paper; I was not one of them. |
| Posted by: regular joe 2009-01-01 14:50 |
| #8 "I truly believe that no democracy can remain healthy without an equally healthy press," said Fiedler, now dean of Boston University's College of Communication. "Thus it is in democracy's interest to support the press in the same sense that the human being doesn't hesitate to take medicine when his or her health is threatened." The 'Press' is healthy and probably hasn't been healthier. The problem is that most people (like this idiot) think the Press is solely the MSM. It isn't - not anymore. Today's press is Blogs like Rantburg, Hot Air, Little Green Footballs, and yes even the Daily Kos and Huffington Post. It is also independent reporters like Michael Yon. Some give balanced news, some unbalanced hype (which people will eventually catch on to and they will eventually wither and die too). Some, like Rantburg, have knowledgable people who know their field (unlike the MSM which often quotes self-proclaimed 'experts' who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground). The MSM is what is failing - and deserves to die. The Old Grey I say let them die. Extinction is a completely natural process which makes way for more advanced species. The Press will survive just fine. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-01-01 14:05 |
| #7 When newspapers became propaganda organs of parties and groups instead of news providers then the writing was on the wall.... |
| Posted by: 3dc 2009-01-01 13:06 |
| #6 I've known Frank for decades. He's a great guy, but he's wrong on this. I understand why he's angling for this, but he's wrong. regular joe - heh, small world (my sister worked for the Press). |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-01-01 12:27 |
| #5 "The media is a vitally important part of America," Obviously they confuse technology with content. The means of communication are there, open, and flowing, just not the same old self-important ego centrics with a death grip on the conduit. With the near term integration of personal cell phone w/camera technology and the net, there will evolve multiple providers who'll deliver news and information without the hysterically hypocritical proclamation of 'independent' by sock puppets of special interests and dogma. Get the friggin loyal party members subsidize you from their coffers. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-01-01 12:09 |
| #4 It worked great for Pravda. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2009-01-01 12:07 |
| #3 There is no saving the Bristol Press -- it was dead back when I wrote for it in the 1980s, but too stubborn to recognize it. Connecticut is dominated by a statewide paper (the Hartford Courant), which is itself dying -- a Trib-owned rag that has cut back to becoming almost a parody of a high school paper. Not that this is any great loss -- the paper has not written a single news story (aside from a couple of Sat. Op-Eds from a Republican functionary) about its brazenly crooked Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Countrywide) who is the primary wirepuller of the financial meltdown. Newspapers have devolved into Fan-zines of government, and you will see those in government committed to make them formally into wholly owned newsletters. Their de-evolution would not be a big deal except that both broadcast and internet media basically rip-and-read what's in the dead woods. |
| Posted by: regular joe 2009-01-01 10:07 |
| #2 This would be more payback than bailout. |
| Posted by: Grunter 2009-01-01 09:12 |
| #1 Sadly, I predict that they will be successful in their efforts. When you come to realize that we have been sold out, all of the madness begins to make sense. |
| Posted by: Shalet and Tenille1168 2009-01-01 08:49 |