RE: Should Government Subsidize The News?

RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

shannie -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 6:52:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanaYielding This is not a matter of liberal vs conservatism in newpapers, it is market influence. The newspapers are quickly becoming obsolete in today's instant news i.e. blogosphere, the web et al. They are not adapting quickly enough to market conditions and many are competing against themselves by having their own daily editions on the net free of charge. Yes, it's just another case of the government trying to subsidize/bailout industries that are very-clearly no longer viable in the market. It would be like (20-30 years ago) the government trying to bailout/subsidize the typewriter industry. There was no way to for the typewriter industry to "adapt to market conditions" (with or without help from the government). The industry was simply dead with the advent of the word processor. So it's simply another handout (under the guise of propping up a dead industry).

Sanity -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 6:58:44 AM)
Wow, Steven. You just earned a certain amount of my very sincere respect... quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven OMFG. No way. On several levels. 1. I'm plenty unhappy about the funding of the NEA. Arguments over what KIND of art should be funded, etc... This looks worse. 2. The problems are that the Internet is a free alternative to print media, and that advertisers are tightening their belts. The bill addresses neither of those. 3. Print media kills trees. Internet does not. 4. I was up in arms when Bush proposed his faith based initiatives. I want religions to be focused on devotion and meeting social needs. I do NOT want them to be spending their resources writing proposals and worrying about how their actions will play in Washington. The concept of a media that is not independent scares me.

shannie -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 7:06:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven The concept of a media that is not independent scares me. These giant media corporations were never independent of the source of their funding anyway. Giant corporations, government. Is there really a clear line between them anymore (in terms of the circle of funding and influence)?

DomKen -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 7:24:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Prove that "Bush" unfairly went after liberal churches... I think you pulled that one out of your back pocket. And try to prove that I was silent about it over the last eight or so years. [:D] (Even if I was, just because someone doesn't publicly comment on something doesn't indicate that they support it). This kind of trollish behavior on your part is the reason I ignore your posts for the most part, Ken. If I abandoned the thread it was simply because there were no more posts that were worth responding to! quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I note that you were silent when the previous administration went after liberal churches for accusations of endorsing political candidates (which is actually what is disallowed BTW). I also note that when I showed that this had been going on in the previous thread you simply abandoned the thread. Cute. I never said Bush ordered anything fair or unfair. I said the previous administration did go after a liberal church based on a claim that what the pastor said amounted to an endorsement which is what the article I provided in the earlier thread proved. As to proving your silence, I just searched your posting history using for every use of church, religion, religious, pastor and minister. So on this forum I know that you were silent on the issue. As to your abandonment of the previous thread it came immediately after I provided proof that liberal churches had been investigated by the previous administration after you claimed it didn't happen.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 7:36:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 sure......studies.....numerous ones even.....does that include Fox,the media arm of the RNC? God, it consistently amazes me how often FOX is brought up...perhaps because it has been successful...in liberal arguments about the "balance" of news reporting. CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post, The Denver Post, Time, Newsweek are all representative of the Democratic/liberal/progressive side. In the conservative corner...FOX. No, newspapers should not be subsizidized by the government nor should any media outlet that covers the news. Though bias cannot be kept out of these outlets...the people writing for newspapers and T.V. have their own beliefs and that tends more and more to color their reporting--- reporting in which many times you have editorials masquerading as news stories...the minute government money becomes the biggest source of revenue, that's the minute that the press is no longer "free".

kdsub -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 8:15:01 AM)
If the Government wants to secure the future of newspapers all they have to do is make it illegal to send unsolicited advertising through the mail service. The BBC is directly funded from the UK and manages to stay fairly neutral I don’t see where a tax break in America should be any different. Sanity you must remember newspapers in general reflect their reading public and the wishes of their advertisers. They are only as liberal or conservative as the people they serve. Butch

kdsub -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 8:24:59 AM)
Most big cities in America have a Democratic majority... this means most big city newspapers have a Democratic liberal bent. However the newspapers of towns like Springfield Missouri The community News... or the Boone County Press serve Republican conservatives and reflect their views...They will benefit from this tax break as well. Overall newspapers reflect the political views of the readers in their area so it would be a fair tax break. Butch

CruelNUnsual -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 8:29:51 AM)
There shouldnt be government subsidies for ANY business, so why should news be any different? And if Blowboy's treatment of the auto companies is any indication, give them a subsidy and he will run them and print only fawning praise for him. Oh.....wait.

Owner59 -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 8:52:45 AM)
Let`s de-subsidize Haliburton ,KBR and Blackwater......[:D] Then tobacco farming and off shore tax shelters....[:D]

kittinSol -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 9:04:06 AM)
And pig farms.

MrRodgers -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 9:10:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shannie quote: ORIGINAL: DanaYielding This is not a matter of liberal vs conservatism in newpapers, it is market influence. The newspapers are quickly becoming obsolete in today's instant news i.e. blogosphere, the web et al. They are not adapting quickly enough to market conditions and many are competing against themselves by having their own daily editions on the net free of charge. Yes, it's just another case of the government trying to subsidize/bailout industries that are very-clearly no longer viable in the market. It would be like (20-30 years ago) the government trying to bailout/subsidize the typewriter industry. There was no way to for the typewriter industry to "adapt to market conditions" (with or without help from the government). The industry was simply dead with the advent of the word processor. So it's simply another handout (under the guise of propping up a dead industry). Yes, this would be simply another govt. handout but for all of the arguments against it, the money will be forthcoming proportional to the investment by newspapers in the plutocracy that our govt. has become. Enough money is thrown at govt. to get an entire useless market created in ethanol, enough money was thrown around to get lumber and steel tariffs. Enough money was thrown around to keep federal taxes on paper profits at 15% as oppossed to the 35% labor pays at that income level. Farmers are the fair-haired favorite of both sides. Seems wall street is now also. Every large city newspaper in the country would be flush with $700 billion in susbidies. Yes, more of the same and all because it will have been purchased from the plutocracy. American society must either get over this or otherwise vote for term limits of the political class.

MrRodgers -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 9:12:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual There shouldnt be government subsidies for ANY business, so why should news be any different? And if Blowboy's treatment of the auto companies is any indication, give them a subsidy and he will run them and print only fawning praise for him. Oh.....wait. Yea, better we save that money for wall street and the bankers just in case they need a few more bonuses. They're so much more deserving, aren't they ?

MrRodgers -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 9:19:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Most big cities in America have a Democratic majority... this means most big city newspapers have a Democratic liberal bent. However the newspapers of towns like Springfield Missouri The community News... or the Boone County Press serve Republican conservatives and reflect their views...They will benefit from this tax break as well. Overall newspapers reflect the political views of the readers in their area so it would be a fair tax break. Butch Well it's not so simple anymore. In Detroit back in the day it was the news (liberal) and then the free press (conservative) who were allowed to merge under one owner. The news came to the center...the free press went even further right...no need to compete. The Wash. Times I think is in line to lose a cumilative $1 billion since its inception just so the Post doesn't have a monopoly and I think is already a non-profit but not by choice.

rulemylife -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 9:49:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanaYielding the Ed/Op pages Which has always made me wonder about the liberal media bias claim. I can name a half-dozen newspapers just off the top of my head that have very conservative viewpoints consistently in their Ed/Op section.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 11:34:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Let`s de-subsidize Haliburton ,KBR and Blackwater......[:D] Then tobacco farming and off shore tax shelters....[:D] And family farms...and wildlife habitats...and Bio-fuel...and windfarms...

kittinSol -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 11:51:23 AM)
And the weapons industry.

slvemike4u -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 11:52:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Let`s de-subsidize Haliburton ,KBR and Blackwater......[:D] Then tobacco farming and off shore tax shelters....[:D] And family farms...and wildlife habitats...and Bio-fuel...and windfarms... And you see nothing ironic in this post? The term "relative value"mean anything to you?

CruelNUnsual -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 11:58:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: DanaYielding the Ed/Op pages Which has always made me wonder about the liberal media bias claim. I can name a half-dozen newspapers just off the top of my head that have very conservative viewpoints consistently in their Ed/Op section. The bias "claim" is wrt to the news sections, not Op/Eds. When opinion is disguised as news is when there is a problem, not in clearly labeled opinion sections.

Apocalypso -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 12:04:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual There have been numerous studies by Universities that lean left to start with demonstrating it. Can you cite a couple of them for us?

CruelNUnsual -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/7/2009 12:23:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual There have been numerous studies by Universities that lean left to start with demonstrating it. Can you cite a couple of them for us? http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664 http://atmizzou.missouri.edu/feb05/liberalmedia.htm http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124 There is also a very dense mathematical study of WHY there is a liberal bias in the media out of Stanford.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125