[abb]

Why should the FCC, a government agency, be concerned about the viability of newspapers? Keep an eye on this one folks. With government aid comes government control. Every time.

[abb]

ping

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Beware the Government/Media Complex!

[Man50D]

Once again the socialist media can’t admit it is losing subscribers because people are disgusted with the socialist bias.

[NonValueAdded]

If we don’t act to improve the health of the newspaper industry

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.

[Gorzaloon]

If we don’t act to improve the health of the newspaper industry, we will see newspapers wither and die.

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.

[Copernicus]

It is not a question of viability, it is a question of content.

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.

Best regards,

[ConservativeMind]

These people are just simply sick.

[capt. norm]

That's like trying to subsidize buggy-whip manufacturers.

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.

[Billthedrill]

The issue is actually whether newspaper owners should be permitted to also own broadcast media in the same market. It is curious that the argument takes the form of one industry essentially subsidizing another; surely an organization whose circulation is in decline will find similar problems in a broadcast industry as a result of similar policies.

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.

[Bob J]

If we don’t act to improve subsidize the health income of the newspaper industry with taxpayer money, we will see newspapers wither and die all be out of a job. Without newspapers, we the gullible idiots we call readers would become less more informed about our communities because they will be forced to get their news from the internet and have fewer thousands of outlets for the expression of independent thinking and a diversity of viewpoints. The challenge scam is to restore the viability monopoly of newspapers with taxpayer money while preserving the core values travesty of a diversity of voices elite media hegemony and under the cover of a feigned commitment to localism in the media marketplace.

Fixed it.

[Milhous]

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.

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.

[Doctor Raoul]

Proposing to pay Pinch for treason is treason.

[Chode]