Posted on 01/12/2009 4:53:28 AM PST by Kaslin
Connecticut is considering a bailout for local papers. But government assistance always comes with a catch. In the case of government aid of newspapers, it will destroy the ability of those papers to function as watchdogs. As journalism professor Paul Janensch told Reuters, "You can't expect a watchdog to bite the hand that feeds it." That's why the news out of Connecticut is very disturbing.
Two small-town papers have been in danger of being shut down because of decreasing revenue and poor management decisions. Journal Register Corp. recently had to sell the two papers, The Bristol Press and The (New Britain) Herald. Without a buyer, the alternative would have been to close the papers.
Just prior to the sale, one Connecticut State Rep., Frank Nicastro, along with the state's Department of Economic and Community Development, came to save the day. They offered a helping hand. Nicastro believes "the media is a vitally important part of America." For that reason, he has been willing to extend a bailout and keep these newspapers in business. The newspapers' announced buyer, Michael E. Schroeder, has declined to comment on any specific tax breaks or other incentives that may have been offered or accepted.
The preservation of America's democracy has long relied on a free and fiercely independent press. Newspapers play a crucial role in investigations of government corruption. Elections become meaningless when information is not accessible regarding government officials and their activities.
In countries with dictatorships or weak democracies, the press is one of the first institutions to come under attack. They hold a nation's leaders accountable. Widespread propaganda is only effective where a free press is absent, and then the citizenry can be fed government-sponsored lies. The freedom of our press would be undermined even by this less overt but equally dangerous newsroom subsidy.
Preserving the free press is impossible when that industry is subsisting on government handouts. As the old adage goes, a government powerful enough to give something is powerful enough to take it away.
Government involvement in assisting newspapers throws the idea of a free and fair press out the window. This is a timely issue, given that most newspaper publishers including The Washington Post Co., McClatchy, and The New York Times are dealing with tough fiscal times as the economy sinks and ad revenues decline sharply.
Over the coming months, watch as it becomes increasingly common for newspaper publishers to seek government assistance as they struggle to survive in this challenging economy. When the government becomes involved in a private industry, the assistance always comes with strings attached. As evidenced by the recent bailouts of the banking and auto industries, Congress only doled out money once they were given greater oversight and control over the recipient.
Even if a newspaper is not under direct pressure by the government, there will be an inherent pressure to not upset those who are funding your company. If the state of Connecticut is giving tax breaks to The Bristol Press, and the paper starts writing articles and editorials critical of the governor, those in authority could easily decide they could no longer afford to give tax breaks for that company.
Lost amid the myriad of Rod Blagojevich scandals and transcripts was the fact that the governor of Illinois and his chief of staff were in discussions to withhold government assistance from the Tribune Co. unless an editor critical of the administration was fired. Few government officials are as corrupt as "Hot Rod", but the opportunity for abuse is readily available.
The situation in Connecticut presents a dangerous precedent. Government involvement in the press is an inherently bad proposition that will take away the ability of newspapers to properly fulfill their role and opens a Pandora's Box of abuse. Newspapers must adapt and survive without government assistance or else one of the foundations of our free society will crumble.
“Newspapers play a crucial role in investigations of government corruption. Elections become meaningless when information is not accessible regarding government officials and their activities.”
That is the only reason Obama became President. If the “Independent” media did its job, right now Obama would be awaiting trial instead of changing the curtains in the White House.
The authors have it completely backward.
The issue is not government involvement in the press but rather press involvement in government, i.e., the election of Obama, politicians responding to liberal newspaper editorials that have no basis in the will of the people and anachronisms like the WH press corps and DC ‘bureau chiefs’ sending a weekly dose of Potomac Fever back to flyover country.
“Neutered” is not a severe enough cut!
Why would government give a subsidy to newspapers?
To assure continued propaganda support.
—
“To market official truth so at variance with reality,
or engineer consent to policies that mock American values,
or to bypass public opinion altogether,
government (& media) must so thoroughly miss-inform the public as to poison the wellspring of democracy.”
From “The Rockets Red Glare” by Burnett (1990)
Watchdog? Now that is funny.
Are you blaming conservative newspapers for 0bama’s victory?
January 20, 2009 = the date Alice Q. Public heads down the rabbit hole into the Obamanation. Things will continue to get curiouser and curiouser.
I don’t see much danger of the newspaper world upsetting the Obama administration. They suck up to him like sycophantic eunuchs.
This article assumes that newspapers have any desire to serve as watchdogs. In most cases, they couldn’t care less about government malfeasance. Newspaper publishers might as well take the government payoff - they earned it.
Watchdog! They already function as am arm of the DNC. But now taxpayers will subsidize it.
Remind me please, which major newspapers lean Conservative? Most newspapers have lost any pretense of even-handedness. Let the Leftist major newspapers die. They deserve it.
‘they couldn’t care less about Democrat government malfeasance’
There, fixed it.
“Are you blaming conservative newspapers for 0bama’s victory?”
No, I am blaming all the rest of the newspapers for Obama’s victory. Conservative newspapers preach to the choir. Something that we have forgotten is you have to get your message out to others. Our message has been stifled because we refuse to go out into the streets, unlike our opponents on the left.
We are at war with the left. Well they are at war, we are sitting here saying Jesus will make everything ok. The left is the camel in the tent. And right now their entire body is in the tent and they are eating off our plate.
We all sit here and talk about the halycon days of Reagan and how we need to get back to those days. Got news, those days will never return unless we do three things.
1) Have a litmus test for all our representatives stating that they will obide by term limits.
2) That we have a litmus test for Republican representatives that they will follow Conservative preiciples.
3) Beat the left the way Reagan beat the Soviets. Bankrupt them. File lawsuits against all leftist agenda political groups. Sue PETA, Sierra Club, NARAL. Force them to spend billions on defense. They play well with other peoples money. Force them to use their own.
Basically attack attack attack. Until we decide to do that, you can kiss democracy as we know it goodbye.
The State Rep made two mistakes in one sentence of nine words - one gramatical and one substantive. The INDEPENDENT media are vitally important to a FREE America. When you get used to your allowance, you usually make the bed and clean the room as directed.
If we only had a "free and fiercely independent press." Our media is nothing but an arm of the Democrat Party. They made this official in this past election. Let them die, and make sure that liberals don't get control of the Internet.
“will the news media be neutered?”
no.
only those which oppose the agenda of the liberal democrats.
IMHO
Many people also overlook the fact that The New York Times has had an increase (4%) in circulation revenue, even though its ad revenue has dropped like everyone else's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.