Do Ailing Newspapers Need the Government to Save Them?

Reader Comments
Back to article

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

Allen Martin of TX 2:39PM May 06, 2009

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.

Jonathan of LA 10:24AM April 28, 2009

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.

Mark J. Reiff of WI 2:25PM April 26, 2009

Newspapers have been on a decline for years. Long before the current downturn. I am currently enjoying my online edition of US News, having finished the local Orlando Sentinel, the financials at Investors Business Daily and breaking news at Yahoo and Google.
The end of newspapers will not be the end of news, just the end of an outdated business model. Many people have no time for newspapers. They have Apple Iphones and Blackberries and keeps up with the news and markets with instant alerts. People want to know what is happening NOW . . not read about it tomorrow. Tomorrow is fine for analysis and opinion, but not for news.
The last thing we need is taxpayer money going for a lost cause that will be made worse by government support. Who could trust the objectivity of a government supported newspaper. Ever read a translated edition of Pravda? No thanks.
This last point is important. The consolidation of newspapers and network news has placed control of the news in the hands of too few. This chokes off discussion. The news cannot control what we think, but it can and does control what we think about. Cable and internet has smashed this monopoly. We don't need government propping up a consolidated system that is beholden to that very same government.
Think on the bright side. Look at all the trees that will be saved.

Joseph Griffin of FL 4:56AM April 26, 2009

No bailaout, but a restructuring.
The newspapers can't re;y on subscriptions to fund their operation, they need advertising. So lets address these two as one issue but with different solutions. Have the newspapers create an advertising supplement that is mailed via the US Mail (who needs the business) to every household in an area. This would ensure the advertisers a much broader clientele and possibly appeal to more advertisers. The revenue from this advertising would then fund the publishing of the newspaper so that together with the subscribers revenue newspapers could be profitable. Then if they could reduce their political slant maybe the subscribers would also return.

D Wilkens of VA 7:16PM April 24, 2009

Look.....we are saving banks, insurance companys, car co., etc. Where does it stop? I'll tell you, it stops with not bailing out anyone or any company. If GM goes broke, believe you me there will be plenty of Mfg. ready to take up the slack (Toyota, Honda etc). In fact it would help others if GM did go down. The same for any industry; if they can't make a profit then there is just not enough demand for the product. Why make a product that no one wants. GM has been in deep Poopoo even before the recession. Now that car sales are down 40 or 50 percent there is no way they can make it.

Vic M of CA 3:59PM April 24, 2009

Newspapers are ultimately a business and are subject to the same free market conditions that any other business faces. The print media are facing stiff competition from wireless/internet mediums and they need to get creative to keep their market. If they do not or cannot and then are unable to remain viable & profitable on their own then they should suffer the fate of any failed business. Businesses, old & new, come and go for any number of reasons (technological advancements, poor management, a reduced demand for their product, and/or poor economic conditions, etc.). Just how many businesses can we, the American taxpayer, afford to prop up?

Beverly of TX 3:51PM April 24, 2009

No, I don't think the government should bail out the newspapers, either, although I happen to lean liberal. But I've got to believe that Mr. Bozell III, despite his position, doesn't even read newspapers if he thinks that newspapers cost only two bits these days.

Kerry Kleiber of IN 12:46PM April 24, 2009

No! Do not bail out the media of any type.
The papers that are failing are nearly all left wing propaganda mills who frequently pass around slightly reworked versions of the same lies. Many people recognize this and get something else. The Left wants government support for their Pravdas.
You want proof? How's this (from Factcheck.org).
"...Obama would have been correct to say that 90 percent of the guns submitted for tracing by Mexican authorities were then traced to the U.S. The percentage of all recovered guns that came from the U.S. is unknown.
The 90% Claim
The president isn't the first to make this mistaken claim; far from it. During an interview on CBS' "Early Show" on March 26, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: "We have to recognize and accept that the demand for drugs from the United States drives them north, and the guns that are used by the drug cartels against the police and the military, 90 percent of them come from America."
The 90 percent figure was similarly cited by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) during a March 17 congressional hearing on the subject. Durbin said: "According to ATF [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], more than 90 percent of the guns seized after raids or shootings in Mexico have been traced right here to the United States of America." Feinstein added: "It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico used to shoot judges, police officers, mayors, kidnap innocent people and do terrible things come from the United States, and I think we must put a stop to that."
And it's been reported by a phalanx of news organizations, including the Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times, NBC and the Chicago Tribune, that 90 percent of Mexico's recovered guns come from the U.S.
Mexican authorities have made the same error: On CBS' "Face the Nation" on April 12, Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan said: "Ninety percent of all weapons we are seizing in Mexico, Bob, are coming from across the United States."
Most who have used the statistic attribute it to ATF. Others attribute the figure to officials within the Mexican government. But that's not correct."
Notice the political slant of the perveyors of this lie? Only Fox News showed how the 90% figure was a lie - and supported it with facts. The others just circulated the same left wing lies.
Truth will out.

rspock of AZ 12:26PM April 24, 2009

I start ever day with the morning newspaper and a highlight of my week is a liesurely Sunday morning breakfast with all the sections of the Sunday edition. It pains me to see so many papers failing and the remaining ones reducing size and quality; but my answer to this question is no. Our Government needs to stick to the legitimate business of governing and let the market pick the winners and losers in our evolving ecomomy.

Brad of TX 12:26PM April 24, 2009