Taxpayers, not tech titans, must keep local news alive

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | March 3, 2019 | Joe Mathews

[artichokegrower]

Whose job it is to revive local journalism in California?

[artichokegrower]

And the most sustainable way to restore local media is to have local taxpayers to foot the bill.

I live in California the reason the local media became irrelevant to me is due to it's open border, socialized medicine, pro homeless, pro drug, pro local school indoctrination agenda along with the never ending anti Trump screed. Why would I support their newspaper?

[Still Thinking]

That’s why they need to disconnect the decision from the funding. How else is maker money going to support taker propaganda?

[IronJack]

Absolutely not. Journalism is a private enterprise. If it can’t survive in the free market, then it deserves to die. Forcing taxpayers to subsidize their enemies is the ultimate tyranny.

[dfwgator]

Which means government-funded media.

And if you take the King’s coin, you will do the King’s bidding.

[Steve_Seattle]

"America’s local newspapers have long been subsidized by government notices and by advertising from local businesses whose owners double as public officials."

Government notices aren't a subsidy; they are a legal requirement. As for the second part, I'm not even sure what he's talking about. Business ads are business ads, regardless of whether an owner is also a "public official."

"Another reason for taxpayer-funded local media is simple politics. Local governments — and especially the people who work in them, as well as their critics — are the strongest potential supporters of any effort to revive local media."

Socialized journalism will be a tool of socialism, and it's hard to see why the critics of socialism would support it.

[Reno89519]

What?!

[Steve_Seattle]

"And if you take the King’s coin, you will do the King’s bidding."

Beat me to it, and more concisely.

[dfwgator]

[2banana]

Why? We get plenty of Democrat talking points from nearly the entire main stream media...

[nuke_road_warrior]

If the taxpayers, via the government, fund newspapers, doesn’t that violate the first amendment regarding freedom of the press? After all, if the government is paying the bills, the government will directly or indirectly determine the content. If a story is unfavorable to a government official, the editor that approved the story will soon be out of a job, and unemployable at any other government supported media outlet.

[Cold Heart]

Print it all in Spanish?

[napscoordinator]

California alone would pay which I could care less. They are a bunch of loons out there. If it goes federal who pays then I am totally against it. The voters of California want this.

[Tzimisce]

Between giving my money to the indians for reparations, the blacks for reparations, the illegal aliens, people who want sex change operations, abortions and people who just don’t feel like working, when does my money actually become mine?

[Jim Robinson]

They do this in totalitarian states, and you best not speak out in opposition to the official government position.

[waterhill]

Tar and feather candidate

[irishjuggler]

Pravda USA, here we come. Amazing how the left keeps pining for Bolshevik model that was tried in Russia and China and utterly failed.

[aquila48]

He’s a local propagandist who doesn’t even realize that stupid ideas like he’s proposing are the exact reason for his deserved demise.

[dhs12345]

It never was...

[Drango]

I’d rather fund root canals and prostate exams.

[ZOOKER]

Great idea, gov't subsidized media.

We could call it the Ministry of Truth...