They’re non-profit already. If they generated a profit, they wouldn’t be closing newsrooms.
Well, technically most newspapers are non-profit these days...
How about tax exempt status to talk radio?
They won't endorse a political candidate they'll just tell you how wonderful liberalism. They will just tell you how evil Republicans are and how you should vote for anyone but them.
This is hilarious - how would newspapers be able to function without endorsing a candidate or a political viewpoint. That’s all the are really good for anyway!
All it takes is for Rahm/Carville/Begala to discuss this brainstorm on their daily conference call and it’ll happen one way or another.
After all, aren’t all newspapers in Old Europe subsidized by the State?
Then again, seeing what happened to their last brilliant idea (demonizing Rush from the pulpit) they might be holding off on such stunts.
Let them! Then they have to receive either a 5013C status, and CANNOT get political (i.e., endorse candidates) without being at risk of losing their tax-exempt status (as a pastor and a GM for non-profit Christian radio, I should know), or be listed as a PAC!:)))
so much for no taxation with no representation.
Those for the left no taxes.
Those for the right HEAVY taxes.
Now we just have taxation WITH representation,,,,NOT!
No F***ing way!
Not for profits are subsidized by you and me with our taxes.
All we need is another 2,000 public radio clones and nobody will ever remember what a free press even was.
>but they can report on the campaign<
When McCain flatlined in the middle of the campaign, MSM brought out the crash cart.
They “reported on his campaign” non-stop until he was resurrected. Reporting on the campaign, while not a flat-out endorsement, can make or break a candidate and may be even more critical than an endorsement.
An endorsement is a simple, one-time editorial.
Camapign coverage is ongoing until the candidate drops out.
The crooked democrat party controlled newspapers do almost all their editorializing off the editorial page.
That’s why no one reads the damn things.
More taxpayer funding of the democrat party.
They would be prohibited from not just ENDORSING a candidate or party or piece of legislation, they would also be prohibited from engaging in ANY advocacy for/against a candidate, party, or piece of pending legislation.
Of course taxpayer funded Pacifica Radio and NPR and PBS and other 501c3s violate this all the time (I saw Green Party literature in their "organizations" handout materials. If a church did that, the ACLU would be seeking to have the church stripped of its 501c3 status.
Oh, goody, another layer of faux objectivity with a government imprimatur! They can just report ‘facts’, and will be limited to deciding which side spare not effort in digging up dirt on, and which side give the benefit of spiking every story that suggests corruption, incompetence, or double-talk. “But we’re non-partisan! See the government says so!”
No thanks!
Cardin's assumption that the regular political reporting is unbiased, proves that he is either naive, or that he was abducted by aliens and missed the entire 2008 Campaign.
I will say that the MSM would love the idea, selfless servants of the public that they are. It would give them cover for a bias so open that liberals are laughing at it. And a very nice little gift packet from the taxpayer. What's not to like?
The catch is that THE GOVERNMENT decides what it means to be ‘supporting a candidate’
A good story about a democrap: Fair and Balanced
A good story about a Republican: Evil partisan support
Well, if they cannot endorse a dimocrat for office, they might as well shut down. That is their main reason for living anyway.
This is the next nail in the coffin of the first amendment. When the government “grants” tax exempt status, they will find a way to own the newspapers. Of course, the papers already “self-censor” so it hardly matters...except, now they will not fail because of their lack of journalistic integrity...the government will hold them up just as they do with PBS.