The traditional newspaper is dying. The Evening Standard has been sold off for a pound to a former KGB agent, the Los Angeles Times is bankrupt and even the New York Times is in trouble. Mexican plutocrat Carlos Slim may become its largest shareholder in return for financing the paper's billion-dollar debt. Except for the financial press, newspapers have failed to convince readers to pay for online access -- and there is no reason to think that readers will suddenly succumb to the charms of PayPal.
The newspaper bust has been good for one business. Policy wonks have been charging into the breach with a host of different solutions to the escalating crisis. Aside from the usual appeals for tax breaks and bail-outs, the more innovative proposals come in two types.
On the private side, there have been calls for charities to endow newspapers or to subsidise political reporting. On the public side, the success of the BBC and American Public Broadcasting provides a paradigm that might be extended to the print media.
On the private side, there have been calls for charities to endow newspapers or to subsidise political reporting. On the public side, the success of the BBC and American Public Broadcasting provides a paradigm that might be extended to the print media.
There is a third way out. We urge democracies throughout the world to consider the creation of national endowments for journalism that are carefully designed to confront the impending collapse of investigative reporting.
The real concern is not the newspaper, but news coverage. It's not clear that print news is a viable technology. Classified ads are more efficiently delivered by websites. Nobody under 50 waits to read all about stock prices or sports scores in the morning edition. The government should sit back and let the market decide the right way to distribute the news.
But there are huge costs to losing a vibrant core of investigative reporters covering local, national and international stories. The internet is well suited to detect scandals that require lots of bloggers to spend a little bit of time searching for bits of incriminating evidence. But it's no substitute for serious investigative reporting that requires weeks of intelligent inquiry to get to the heart of the problem. Without Woodwards and Bernsteins, there will be even more Nixons and Madoffs raining mayhem and destruction.
It will take decades to revitalise investigative journalism if we allow the present corps of reporters to disintegrate. This is happening at an alarming rate. A Pew study indicates that 15,000 journalists lost their jobs in the US in 2008, with reductions of more than 20% at large newspapers. These grim numbers are harbingers of a worldwide crisis that undermines the very foundation of liberal democracy. Any serious solution should focus exclusively on this problem -- the collapse of investigative journalism, not the fate of particular delivery systems.
The problem with a BBC-style solution is clear enough. It is one thing for government to serve as one source of investigation but quite another for it to dominate the field. A near-monopoly would mean the death of critical inquiry.
There are serious problems with private endowments as well. For starters, there is the matter of scale. Pro Publica, an innovative private foundation for investigative reporting, is currently funding 28 journalists. It is hard to make the case for a massive increase in private funding when university endowments are crashing throughout the world, imperilling basic research. More fundamentally, a system of private endowments creates perverse incentives. Insulated from the profit motive, the endowments will pursue their own agendas without paying much attention to the issues that the public really cares about.
Here is where our system of national endowments enters the argument. In contrast to current proposals, we do not rely on public or private do-gooders to dole out money to their favourite journalists. Each national endowment would subsidise investigations on a strict mathematical formula based on the number of citizens who actually read their reports on news sites.
Some might find this prospect daunting. Readers may flock to sensationalist tabloids that will also qualify for grants for their "investigations". But common sense, as well as fundamental liberal values, counsels against any governmental effort to regulate the quality of news. So long as the endowment only subsidises investigative expenditures, in-depth reporting will get a large share of the fund -- provided that it generates important stories that generate broad interest.
The endowment must monitor media hits and circulation counts. This is doable. Advertisers already rely on independent audits. So can the government. Some governmental monitoring of financial matters is also necessary. News organisations would otherwise be tempted to obtain subsidies for marketing and business operations. Without minimising the problems involved in institutional design, the creation of an effective and disciplined national endowment seems entirely realistic.
The crisis in reporting comes at the worst possible time, when a broad range of industries are lining up for big bail-outs. We generally oppose government efforts to second-guess the market. But this case really is special. Liberal democracy can survive a crisis in the auto or construction industry, but it cannot do without a vibrant fourth estate.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
IMO, the establishment of National Endowment for Child Molestation is even more urgent.
#2
The real alternative is to go back to their roots as simply broadsheets for the political parties they represent. Back in the 19th Century, that is what they were. That they started to attract advertising and make money was just a spin off rather than a goal. So, let's see the parties directly carry the load of propagandizing the masses rather than any government subsidy. Pay your party dues and get a subscription at the same time. Of course, the Donks won't support this because it would involve their own money. Socialism only works till the other guys money runs out.
#3
I don't see how this can occur without the government also (eventually) regulating the content. Anything that government dollars are spent on, the argument goes, are subject to "accountability" which is subject to political pressure from the party in charge.
#4
"Anything that government dollars are spent on, the argument goes, are subject to "accountability" which is subject to political pressure from the partythe Far-Leftist Democrats, no matter which party is in charge."
Fixed that for ya', W.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/14/2009 10:22 Comments ||
Top||
#6
" losing a vibrant core of investigative reporters covering local, national and international stories"
Losing? It hasn't existed in 20 years. They are all slanted now, from the choice of pejorative and prejudicial wording, slecting which facts to include or ignore to slant individual articles, to the choice of which stories to puslish and which to ignore.
#8
Pro-terror presstitutes should consider the fate of their predecessors, Goebbels and Streicher, and count themselves lucky if bankruptcy is all they get.
#9
There already is a national endowment for journalism. It's housed in the Columbia University's School of Journalism, the University of Missouri's School of Journalism (or is it Mississippi? 3dc can tell us), etc.
Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist. Granted, only a qualified mental health diagnostician can determine whether someone suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) and this, following lengthy tests and personal interviews. But, in the absence of access to Barack Obama, one has to rely on his overt performance and on testimonies by his closest, nearest and dearest.
Narcissistic leaders are nefarious and their effects pernicious. They are subtle, refined, socially-adept, manipulative, possessed of thespian skills, and convincing. Both types equally lack empathy and are ruthless and relentless or driven.
Perhaps it is time to require each candidate to high office in the USA to submit to a rigorous physical and mental checkup with the results made public.
I. Upbringing and Childhood
Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations. Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then, his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia: a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995.
Pathological narcissism is a reaction to prolonged abuse and trauma in early childhood or early adolescence. The source of the abuse or trauma is immaterial: the perpetrators could be dysfunctional or absent parents, teachers, other adults, or peers.
II. Behavior Patterns
The narcissist:
Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates accomplishments, talents, skills, contacts, and personality traits to the point of lying, demands to be recognised as superior without commensurate achievements);
* Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion;
* Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions);
* Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (Narcissistic Supply);
* Feels entitled. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her unreasonable expectations for special and favourable priority treatment;
* Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends;
* Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with, acknowledge, or accept the feelings, needs, preferences, priorities, and choices of others;
* Constantly envious of others and seeks to hurt or destroy the objects of his or her frustration. Suffers from persecutory (paranoid) delusions as he or she believes that they feel the same about him or her and are likely to act similarly;
* Behaves arrogantly and haughtily. Feels superior, omnipotent, omniscient, invincible, immune, "above the law", and omnipresent (magical thinking). Rages when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted by people he or she considers inferior to him or her and unworthy.
#4
I say, merely narcissistic. My father has full-blown pathological NPD. He has a master's degree and a couple mil he inherited, works weekends at Lowe's for the employee discount, lives underground in an old missile silo ringed with security cameras 100 miles from civilization, thinks Men In Black use defense satellites to spy on him, eats grade B eggs, wears rags, and buys only used books, and left his daughter, wife, and mother-in-law to rot in the street, while making generous campaign donations to Ron Paul. He insists there is no such thing as objective reality, paranoid delusions of persecution define his world, and he actually believes that the silo will be enshrined as a museum upon his death. The only thing separating him from Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczinski is balls. My point: Obama may be a self-aggrandizing opportunist, but real NPDs cannot maintain relationships or function in reality in any meaningful way.
#1
This is not surprising when you consider how far our educational / academic / moral / religious standards have fallen in a mere 25 years.
Just sayin', ya' know.
This article was published in Geostrategy-Direct, an open source intelligence (OSINT) newsletter that has a good track record.
The report would probably seem preposterous if it weren't for the fact that Team Obama already waived sanctions on Syria and is considering opening travel to Cuba.
DOSSIER: Ehud Barak
'Change' the mullahs can believe in: Obama to drop sanctions on Iran
TEL AVIV -- Israelis may have gone to the polls hoping for "Change" but the status quo is all any of the candidates could look forward to whatever the outcome. Defense Minister Ehud Barack, has already glimpsed the future and has warned about what it holds.
Meanwhile, the status quo means continued rocket and missile attacks while international aid pours into the Gaza Strip and bolsters a regime run by Hamas, which is still considered by the United States to be a terrorist organization.
But "Change" is taking place, Barak has intimated, originating not in the Mideast but in Washington, D.C. in the form of a U.S. reconciliation with Iran.
Such a process could result in U.S. acceptance of Teheran's nuclear weapons program and the downplaying of its threats against Israel.
Just as Barack Obama entered office facing a massive economic crisis beyond the scope of his experience, likewise the new Israeli leader will have to make or delay making difficult strategic decisions from the minute he or she enters office.
Barak has already signaled what the new government can expect, officials here said.
The United States has abandoned its policy of sanctioning companies that aid Iran's nuclear and missile program, they said.
The officials said the new Obama administration of has decided to end sanctions against Iranian government agencies or companies that aid Teheran's missile and nuclear program. The officials said Israel has been informed of the new U.S. policy.
"We were told that sanctions do not help the new U.S. policy of dialogue with Iran," an official said.
Barak confirmed the new U.S. policy. In an address to the Herzliya Conference on Feb. 3, Barak said Washington did not say whether it would resume sanctions against Iran.
"We must arrive at a strategic understanding with the United States over Iran's military nuclear program and ensure that even if at this time they opt for the diplomatic option, it will only last a short time before harsh and necessary sanctions are imposed," Barak said.
Obama decided to end sanctions against Iran after determining that the U.S. measures had failed to block Teheran's missile or nuclear weapons program, officials said. Under the administration of former President George Bush, the United States accelerated sanctions on Iran in 2008.
In his address, the Israeli defense minister indicated that Obama had forged an entirely new approach toward Iran. He said the Israeli government has sought a briefing from the new U.S. administration.
A U.S. defense source said the White House would no longer enforce sanctions imposed by the Bush administration. The source said the decision has already been relayed to Iran.
"The administration has abandoned sanctions entirely," the U.S. source said. "It is a completely new ballgame."
Similarly, Obama has decided on a new U.S. ambassador to Syria and is expected to lift sanctions against a nation charged with aiding Al Qaida in Iraq and secretly building a nuclear reactor with North Korean assistance.
Diplomatic sources said Obama, in consultation with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has asked Frederic Hof to become the first U.S. ambassador to Damascus since 2005. The sources said Hof, a member of the National Advisory Committee of the Middle East Policy Council, agreed to take the post.
The sources said the Obama administration was expected to suspend U.S. sanctions on Syria's military and energy programs. They said Hof would be authorized to facilitate an expansion of U.S. relations with Syria, which deteriorated under President George Bush.
In 2005, the United States withdrew its ambassador to Damascus in wake of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Syria was blamed for the car bombing in Beirut in which Hariri and many of his bodyguards were killed.
The sources said Obama sent emissaries to Syria in September 2008 and pledged that if elected he would reconcile with the regime of President Bashar Assad. After his election victory, they said, Obama sent another message that promised to appoint an ambassador within the first weeks of his administration.
Jon Moulton, the private equity chief, warned a City lunch this week that he feared serious civil unrest. There was, he said, a 25 per cent chance of one of the 15 member countries of the eurozone pulling out of the currency club. That, he said, would be a catastrophic shock leading to a far greater financial crisis than the current one.
The mind boggles at a financial crisis far worse than the current one. Is such a thing possible? Even with this one, it may already be too late to prevent social unrest, especially in Britain, which is tipped to be one of the worst-hit countries economically.
The spectacle of bankers continuing to award themselves bonuses while taking taxpayer support is feeding an extraordinary public rage and a fierce sense of injustice. With 40,000 people losing their jobs each month, it is a recipe for trouble, come the traditional rioting months of the summer.
It wont be bankers being lynched, of course, but small shopkeepers in inner-city areas having their windows smashed and their stock looted. The only surprise is there havent already been antibanker demonstrations in Threadneedle Street secretly cheered on by 99 per cent of Middle England.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
