Do Ailing Newspapers Need the Government to Save Them?

Newspaper bailout

Good newspapers are doing okay while stupid newspapers are failing--let stupid fail: Why should public money fund stupid things that the public shuns?

If we had a "free press"...

The "Yes" vote from Senator Cardin is based on the premise that our democracy "depends on an open and fress press..." If we had an open and free press, that might be a valid argument to some people (I am against any bailouts of any kind, but that is not the premise of my argument). However, Senator Cardin's argument loses its legs when the reader realizes that we currently do not have an open and free press. People have stopped reading the newspaper for 2 reasons: a.) the often quoted reason of a move to digital media (on-line news) and b.) people have lost faith in the ability to read unbiased and/or credible news in their local newspaper. You will not hear a certain group of people in our society talk about the second reason, but that is because they are the ones that benefit. The fact is that many newspapers are left-leaning to some degree or another, and the population that would appreciate that viewpoint is not large enough to support an entire newspaper. More often than not, it seems, we here the editor or writer's personal political viewpoints coming through the article rather than just the facts. Readers are not given the option to choose for themselves, and they are tired of it.

If Thomas Jefferson Were Alive

In today's economy, hearing of another company or industry possibly heading for failure is not good. But if we attempt to save a news media industry, we take on a potentially much more dangerous problem: government influence of the news message itself. Despite our best intentions, we are imperfect beings and we tend to avoid biting the hand that feeds us. On a daily, real-life level, I would be very concerned that the management of a newspaper would be reluctanct to criticize a government official who is keeping them in business.

I also think we need to be more careful when we bring the comments of an historic figure like Thomas Jefferson into the arument. I think it is a misguided and somewhat superficial interpretation of his comments to say that what he held so dear was the physical printing of the news. Considering that in his day, the country did not have the internet, TV, radio, or even electricity, the physical newspaper was the only real means of mass news reporting to the people. It is far more likely that his passion was actually in a news supply to the people that is TOTALLY UNINFLUENCED by the government. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, I would be shocked if he would support even the remotest government involvement in the news, its reporters, or its funding. I believe his message was to guard against such dangers.