FREEDOM OF THE PRESS BAILOUT

Roman Around ^ | 2 January 2009 | Andrew Roman

[andrew roman]

With each passing day, it seems that the number of industries in the United States not asking for a chunk of the bailout loaf dwindles. If somehow belly-button lint were a commodity, you can wager your last nickel that representatives of the American navel lobby would be banging at bailout’s door for a touch.

With so many entities begging for their own wedge of government rescue, does it surprise anyone that the newspaper industry is the latest to come a-mooching? That papers are struggling all across the country isn't news to anyone - nor should it be. The Old Grey Lady herself, as widely reported in recent weeks, is desperate for cash - as are others like the Tribune Company and the McClatchy Company.

But putting aside the everyday, off-the-rack objections that I (and many others) have voiced over and over about government bailouts of private industries in general, does it worry anyone that this particular bailout of newspapers could actually come to fruition?

If not, shouldn't it?

The idea of government throwing life preservers at free press publications so that they may survive is a dangerous game to play.

From Reuters:

Connecticut lawmaker Frank Nicastro sees saving the local newspaper as his duty. But others think he and his colleagues are setting a worrisome precedent for government involvement in the U.S. press. Nicastro represents Connecticut's 79th assembly district, which includes Bristol, a city of about 61,000 people outside Hartford, the state capital. Its paper, The Bristol Press, may fold within days, along with The Herald in nearby New Britain.

That is because publisher Journal Register, in danger of being crushed under hundreds of millions of dollars of debt, says it cannot afford to keep them open anymore.

Nicastro and fellow legislators want the papers to survive, and petitioned the state government to do something about it. "The media is a vitally important part of America," he said, particularly local papers that cover news ignored by big papers and television and radio stations. To some experts, that sounds like a bailout, a word that resurfaced this year after the U.S. government agreed to give hundreds of billions of dollars to the automobile and financial sectors.

Relying on government help raises ethical questions for the press, whose traditional role has been to operate free from government influence as it tries to hold politicians accountable to the people who elected them. Even some publishers desperate for help are wary of this route.

The question is whether or not the press can truly remain free when government moves in to save it. In this case, the state has not offered cash to the failing papers, but rather tax breaks and other incentives, such as "training funds" and "financing opportunities."

But once government hands out even this kind of medicine to sick newspapers, what then? Can this possibly be a good precedent to set?

Connecticut does not see trying to find a buyer and offering tax breaks as exerting influence on the press, said Joan McDonald, the economic development commissioner.

"It is what we do ... with companies whether it's in aerospace, biomedical devices, biotech or financial services," she said. "If a company is developing laser technology, we don't get into the business of what lasers are used for."

But newspapers (and media in general) are already lambasted as being agenda-driven engines of political influence. For anyone taking in oxygen, it's hard to deny that. Still, depending on government to serve as a lifeline to failing papers - who have traditionally existed to function outside of the direct influence of government - is more than troublesome.

Providing government support can muddy that mission, said Paul Janensch, a journalism professor at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, and a former reporter and editor.

"You can't expect a watchdog to bite the hand that feeds it," he said.

Even as industries deemed too important to fail are seeking bailouts, most newspaper publishers have refused to give serious thought to the idea, though some industry insiders recounted joking about it with other newspaper executives.

"The whole idea of the First Amendment and separating media and giving them freedom of control from the government is sacrosanct," said Digby Solomon, publisher of Tribune Co's Daily Press in Newport News, Virginia.

I am an anti-bailout guy to begin with ... but while arguments could be made, much as I might disagree with them, about the significance and importance of rescuing financial institutions, there is no palatable argument that could be made in support of government rescue of privately owned newspapers. Again, no cash is being offered here, but if ever a slope was slippery, this is it.

Indeed, newspaper publishers are businesses, like automobile companies, and need to be able to survive based on the merits (and demand for) their product in the marketplace. In that respect, they are no different from any other free market enterprise.

However, newspapers (and other media outlets) are different in that they wield incredible influence on the American political landscape precisely because they are not supported by government. It's what the Freedom of Press clause in the First Amendment is all about. The media may endorse given policies or even construct a messianic veneer for a given candidate, but to be assisted by government - even with non-cash inducements - somehow doesn't sit right.

Call me silly.

If a newspaper cannot compete, let it die the death it deserves.

-

[Venturer]

The Old Grey Lady and publications like it placed our illegitimate President in office, why shouldn’t they expect a payback.?

[mainestategop]

Dinosaurmedia death watch Alert!