[Plutarch]

Every thread about the Dinosaur media meltdown has posts predicting the victorious Democrats will bailout the MSM. I figured that the left had to be working on this, so I did some Googling, and found this article from 2007 (we are not likely to find any article from 2008, as it would need to be kept under wraps in an election year).

[Tublecane]

“Is publicly supported media the answer?”

NO! That would only make all the media like PBS and NPR. (shudder)

[Tublecane]

I have to ask, if the internet is making the old media obsolete, why do we need to take any action at all? Why can’t we just let the internet take over?

[Fox_Mulder77]

So the British are spending about 15 times as much as we are, despite being only one-fifth our size. The result is that in a country renowned for a vicious, tabloid-style press, the BBC stands protected in the center, producing constant, credible, adversarial journalism that need not compete on grounds of sensationalism.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Milhous]

Grousing about news stories written on the back of ads.

[Plutarch]

Just like the Fairness Doctrine, the MSM subsidy has been talked about among the left, but kept under wraps until they can get Obama elected.

September / October 2007

The Uncle Sam Solution

Can the government help the press? Should it?

By Bree Nordenson  

This past spring, the Columbia Journalism Review convened a panel of top editors and a media investor to discuss the somewhat tiresome topic of the future of newspapers. The situation is undeniably bleak. One need merely consult Romenesko, the media-news aggregator, to witness the freefall in circulation, the unending editorial cutbacks, and the closure of foreign bureaus at so many major metropolitan papers...

...government should play a role in ensuring the future of journalism: “To the extent that the for-profit business model doesn’t provide the level of information that we think society should have, that’s what government is for, and I believe that.”