Obama: We Need To Bail Out Newspapers Or Blogs Will Run The World

Obama yesterday expressed concern at the sorry state of the news industry and said that he will look at a news paper bailout, because otherwise, blogs will take over the world, and that would be a threat to democracy, The Hill reports.

"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding," he said.

He said he would be happy to look a bills that could give tax newspapers tax-breaks if they were to restructure as 50 © (3) educational corporations. One of the bills is that of Senator Ben Cardin, who has introduced the "Newspaper Revitalization Act."

This strikes us as the worst kind of protect the horse and buggy policy imaginable. Newspapers have been printing money for 100+ years, and if the market is now putting an end to that, stifling this change probably isn't a good idea. Back in May we came up with 10 one-line reasons this kind of bailout is a terrible idea. Briefly, they were:

- It's bad to reward outdated businesses based on outdated tech.
- Newspapers delivery trucks don't run on water.
- Traditionally bloated monopolies, newspapers don't know how to innovate.
- Just because newspapers go away doesn't mean sources will.
- Newspapers employ just 0.2 percent of the nation’s labor force.
- 66% of people get their news from TV.
- Newspaper owners think Google is a parasite.
- Ask people when they last bought a paper, much less subscribed.
- A government subsidized "free press" isn't a "free press" at all.
- As newspapers go away, a shrinking supply of ad inventory will drive up ad prices, rewarding innovative new media.

Obama: We Need To Bail Out Newspapers Or Blogs Will Run The World

Got to laugh when Obama is quoted saying this pish. What does he think the rags do already ffs

Free press should not be government funded or bailed out

 

i agree mate newspapers are going out of date fast, if the news companies do all their stuff online and its decent and fact checked people will still read it. no need to prop them up with the government imo, let the old and outdated fade away.

 

I'd agree that newspapers are going out of date and need to be gotten rid of - they make no contribution to modern society. TV news, news websites etc have all overtaken the newspaper industry.

But some of the reasons there are pityful:

Erm...says who? That's a completely unbased assumption based on a stereotype of...well, I'm not sure what the stereotype could be based on...actually, let's just say that reason is a load of bollocks.

A "free press" isn't a "free press" because of who funds it. It's "free" because it's allowed to publish whatever it wants to, not because it isn't subsidised by the government.

For example, would anybody here claim that the BBC isn't "free"? Well, it's set a budget by the government so by that logic it isn't technically part of the "free press" and is just a government run spin-spout. Nonsense.

And Mr Nice, not all newspapers are like the Daily Mail Most respectable papers, especially in the US, publish sources and are commonly transparent. The Independant, The Herald, The Financial Times etc are all very respectable and mainly consist of formal articles - even informal opinions pieces are often backed up with evidence. Obama is quite right when he notes the lack of transparency and evidence based reporting that goes on in the "blogosphere" - it's just that there are other news sources than papers and blogs.

 

This is a horrible idea. You expect the media to be hard on the government when they know the government bailed them out? Yeesh... Let it die if it can't hold itself up... are we just going to bail it out in 10 years? Will it become a subsidized industry?

 

I can only read this as some sort of joke or crazy twist of words.

Newspapers still make a good contribution -- just not in paper.
They provide far better news than tv though. TVs' idea of news is more like gossip commentary. If you want any semblance of understanding any news subject you still have to go read it.

 

I agree, they are just downsizing to fit the new market. There's more than a few ways you can make off the interwebs, and not just theoretical dollars either. A bailout to continue a failed model is a horrible idea.

For the record, blogs tend to infuriate me. I'd be disgusted if that was our only form of news... but whether I'd be more disgusted at a government bailout of the newspaper industry.

 

Newspapers (and TV) tell the public what they want to hear, or should I say, what governments want people to hear.

Eg- Create a problem (Iraq), get a reaction (From the general public), find a solution (Invade the place)

Therefore the powers that-be, invaded Iraq (which they wanted to do in the first place) on the back of a massive lie, in which they got enough people to believe that it was actually worthwhile doing.

New World Order and all that...

And you wonder why Obama is worried about the increasing number of 'bloggers' and alternative news stories...

 

this is a horrible idea and will be another waste of tax payer dollars. if people wanted to read the papers, they would buy them. it's simiple market economics, supply and demand. there isn't the demand there once was so supply is down and the companies are losing money hand over fist. bailing newspapers out will just prolonge their inevitable death.

 

Ergo we'd all be better off with 100% ideological opinion and hit pieces. Makes perfect sense to me!

 

Newspapers are getting irrelevant now.