Skip to comments.The Daily Show (Government to the rescue of newspapers?)
Posted on 11/13/2007 5:10:24 AM PST by abb
IN many towns and cities, the newspaper is an endangered species. At least 300 daily papers have stopped publishing over the past 30 years. Those newspapers that have survived are struggling financially. Newspaper circulation has declined steadily for more than 10 years. Average daily circulation is down 2.6 percent in the last six months alone.
Newspapers have also been hurt by significant cuts in advertising revenue, which accounts for at least 75 percent of their revenue. Their share of the advertising market has fallen every year for the past decade, while online advertising has increased greatly.
At the heart of all of these facts and figures is the undeniable reality that the media marketplace has changed considerably over the last three decades. In 1975, cable television served fewer than 15 percent of television households. Satellite TV did not exist. Today, by contrast, fewer than 15 percent of homes do not subscribe to cable or satellite television. And the Internet as we know it today did not even exist in 1975. Now, nearly one-third of all Americans regularly receive news through the Internet.
If we dont act to improve the health of the newspaper industry, we will see newspapers wither and die. Without newspapers, we would be less informed about our communities and have fewer outlets for the expression of independent thinking and a diversity of viewpoints. The challenge is to restore the viability of newspapers while preserving the core values of a diversity of voices and a commitment to localism in the media marketplace.
Eighteen months ago, the Federal Communications Commission began a review, ordered by Congress and the courts, of its media ownership rules. After six public hearings, 10 economic studies and hundreds of thousands of comments, the commission should move forward.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Beware the Government/Media Complex!
Once again the socialist media can’t admit it is losing subscribers because people are disgusted with the socialist bias.
We??? Who is we? the gubermint? No, no, No! The opening of the article describes all of the new media that has come into play. Many of those outlets have newspaper roots. Those are the entities that have transformed along with the marketplace. For those that we are supposed to save, aren't they the buggy whip manufacturers? Google up the name of any of the small towns that lost a newspaper and you will likely find a working community Web site. Choose other towns that still have a local paper and chances are the community site is tied into the paper's operation. Those are the media outlets that will survive.
The last thing we need is the government to shore up the buggy whip manufacturers.
Our local papers were acquired by an out of town group which prompty raised the price for a small weekly from 35cents to 75 cents while cutting the number of pages.The editorial bent now is very biased in favor of whatever government,"preservationists",enviromentalists,and sports people want.In that order.
I can SAVE YOU!
1) Fire your liberal "Journalists", plagiarizers, and propagandists.
2) Report some news, for the first time in decades.
Failing that, just crawl away and die. Soon.
Newspapers are in the same position AM radio was in before Rush Limbaugh.
Love him or hate him, he did change the face of an entire industry.
The print press should take note.
Posturing themselves in five years for some odd government hand-out...will be a fascinating event to occur. I can see the deal slide via congress...if you show a 30,000 subscription level...the government will compensate you with another 10,000 “free citizens” on your books and pay you for that group...thus making up 25 percent of your profit...without you putting up any cost.
Once we figure this out and understand this...suddenly we will all open up newspapers across the country...four pages at the most...and sell 1,000 subscriptions...and getting another 250 “free citizens” on our books for profit.
After a while...the other print-media...like Time and Newsweek will play the game...then the local stations in Oakland, Chicago, and New York. Everyone in the media will be on media-welfare...by 2050. Amusingly enough...Matt Drudge Jr...will be running a site that makes 1000 percent profit a year...without any government contributions. And Rush Limbaugh Jr...will be coast to coast...with not a single dime of government sponsor money helping him. 60 Minutes will do a piece...wondering how Rush and Matt Jr make a profit without government assistance.
These people are just simply sick.
I’d be pretty suprised to hear Rush still on radio 43 years from now. He’d be more than 100.
No amount of government money will fix the problem that mainstream media has made for itself.
Since they're all liberals, they expect us all to pay for their mistakes.
If we dont act to improve the health of the newspaper industry, we will see newspapers wither and die. Without newspapers, we would be less informed about our communities and have fewer outlets for the expression of independent thinking and a diversity of viewpoints.
Without newspapers, we will see the remaining two thirds of Americans reading locally based web sites for their news. And without The New York Times and the rest of the octopus known as The Associated Press, we will get our national and international news the same way - from multiple sources, acting as our own gatekeeper as to what we will pay attention to and what we will ignore.
That's the denial - the editorial board of the NY Times in particular steadfastly refuses to accept that its market results are partially a result of policy. All of the old complaints are trotted out (as our author does here) - other media are more successful (why?), more relevant (why?), more capable of delivering an advertiser's message (why?), etc, etc. A public rejection based on perceived ideological bias and persistent manipulation does not appear in this equation. Doesn't exist. Can't happen.
Well, it does and it is - if it killed one medium it will kill another. And is, as the current public rejection of anti-Iraq War movies indicates.
That said, the genesis of this particular issue is FCC regulation of a market for purposes of preventing a smothering, oppressive media monopoly by precisely the same sort of ideologues as currently run the Times. A noble purpose, but a market manipulation. If my case is sound the Times will fail in broadcast media for precisely the same reason it's hurting in print. The market works slowly, but it does work. Part of the reason for the left's hate campaign against Fox is that CNN (among others) no longer has a free field and sole possession of the market. It must compete. That hurt.
I confess that in my public role, I feel that the press is not on my side.
It shouldn't be on anyone's "side," and that's the issue here. "To comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" is smug, arrogant, self-serving garbage, never true from the day it was first spouted. But in my opinion the market will prove a greater corrective than the government can. All IMHO, of course.
Times blog gatekeeper Kate Phillips confides that, "I almost wish we could go back to the days when we never heard their voices."
Cognitive dissonance noted.
Proposing to pay Pinch for treason is treason.
Media consolidation, still alive and growing
CHANGES to media-ownership rules proposed by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin do nothing to promote a vigorous and free press. Martin’s plan does the opposite by encouraging media conglomerates to augment their substantial holdings through cross-ownership.
The proposal is a crafty piece of policy that tries to masquerade as a compromise. This is no compromise, but rather a path for media giants to own a newspaper, television station and radio station in the same market. Martin cleverly says that cross-ownership can happen only in the 20 largest media markets, and that the television station would have to fall out of the top four in the market to be included.
Any thought that these are only minor changes that do not have a damaging effect on diversity of media voices is blown away by a provision that allows the FCC to consider exceptions. It is probable that these exceptions would allow for FCC approval of cross-ownership in markets outside the top 20, and for dominant stations.
If the proposal were not bad enough, it does not address two issues at the heart of media consolidation: The changes do not touch the idea of localism how well broadcasters serve their communities through news operations; Martin has also shockingly dropped any consideration about the lack of women- and minority-owned media outlets.
Martin is not only thumbing his nose at good policy, he is trashing the public, which has demonstrated at every FCC hearing during the past year that more media consolidation is not wanted or needed.
The 1975 FCC rule prohibiting companies from owning both a newspaper and broadcast station in the same local market began for the wrong reasons and may soon end for the wrong reasons. DonÂt believe any of the claptrap you may have heard about how such legislation protects the public by keeping the press Âindependent.Â It is nothing more than a stinky deal between Old Media and the government that has protected both of them at the expense of the people.
For Old Media companies, it provided protection against being acquired or facing tougher competition. For government, it provided protection against any citizenÂs voice growing to be more powerful than its own. The very passage of this free speech and free press-abridging rule broke the First AmendmentÂs promise that ÂCongress shall make no lawÂ doing exactly that. Consequently, the public has been artificially stuck for decades with newspapers that are at best mediocre, when they could have benefited from, for instance, successful papers entering from other markets and competing for their business Â something that would have happened in just about any other, less corrupt industry.
The FCC is now considering loosening this cross-ownership rule just a tad, not for the public good, but only as a favor to Old-Media- member-in-good-standing Los Angeles Times. This paper now faces the real possibility of extinction unless another Old Media company is allowed to buy them (presumably because only an Old Media company would be foolish enough to do such a thing). The FCC could at the same time consider the lifting of other similar regulations that hurt the public, such as those that limit ownership of radio stations, radio networks, TV stations, and TV networks. But then, that would be for the public good, not for the good of a member of Old Media. Guess that’s too much to expect these days in the land of the free and the home of the brave.