As we tap dance merrily down the primrose path toward socialism, we will see more and more elements of society line up at the public trough. After all, we bailed out Wall Street, and bought some car companies, and want to forgive some mortgage contracts while making more shaky mortgages for people that can't afford them. Who or what will be next? Why the journalists of course.
Here is a look at one of the latest schemes:
From Utahpolicy.com:
10/20/2009
Is Government-Subsidized Journalism the Future?
By LaVarr Webb
A new report from Columbia University's School of Journalism says government needs to step in to save journalism. BYU communications professor Joel Campbell, a former colleague of mine at the Deseret News, posted a link on Facebook to a blog called SaveTheNews.org, which reports on the study.
It suggests six steps to save journalism, most of which deal with providing tax breaks, government funding, and philanthropy to journalism organizations.
The report's bottom line: "American society must now take some collective responsibility for supporting independent news reporting in this new environment -- as society has, at much greater expense, for public needs like education, health care, scientific advancement and cultural preservation -- through varying combinations of philanthropy, subsidy and government policy."
So is traditional journalism so important that your tax dollars should prop it up?
Analysis by Jerry
This paper from the Columbia School of Journalism is long, perhaps in the hope that the sheer size of the work will make it more compelling. The authors start with a history lesson, and proceed through the causes of the decline in the fortunes of newspapers. One after another winks out. Many (like my hometown paper) are in bankruptcy. The authors move on to try to develop a crisis out of the lack of local reporting. That seems to be a key to the argument.
Finally, the authors say:
“We are not recommending a government bailout of newspapers, or any of the various direct subsidies that governments give newspapers in many European countries.
American society must take some collective responsibility for supporting independent news reporting in this new environment.”
Note here the use of the word "collective", as in collectivist, as in socialist. They say they don't want subsidies in the first sentence and waffle back to suchlike in the next sentence. Collective, collectivist.... socialist. "Do like the Europeans do."
The authors claim throughout the paper that we are going to lose big journalism, which is critical to our democracy. But they peck at the idea, perhaps to expand the length of the piece. (bad writing for a journalist) A better statement of this position actually came from Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google. This statement was in an article in the Wall Street Journal titled "How Google Can Help Newspapers" which is a piece defending Google for creating a site called Google News.
Schmidt says: "We recognize, however, that a crisis for news-gathering is not just a crisis for the newspaper industry. The flow of accurate information, diverse views and proper analysis is critical for the functioning democracy."
I do not disagree with Mr. Schmidt, but I think we have already lost the thing Mr. Schmidt values.
To put it another way, if the main steam media is already not doing its job, I can't see how "collectivist support" (they don't want to call it subsidies) provided by the government will bring it back. I also don't accept the idea, offered by the authors, that government support of news organizations would not compromise their independence. Of course it would.
I offer a different view. I have believed for a long time that the Republican Party is in a life or death struggle with the main stream media. It is possible that neither side recognizes that quite yet, but I believe it is the case. I think the Democrats have recognized this for a long time. The Democrats understand this business of propaganda and control of communications. For example, the Democrats desperately wish to silence Rush Limbaugh, and they are willing to turn the first amendment upside down to do it. They have plans under the cloak of increased diversity, to gag the few other media outlets where Republicans and Conservatives communicate. They even eye the internet as a threat to their control of the "message".
What I mean by life or death struggle is that either the main stream media or the Republican party will survive this contest in some recognizable form. One will survive, not both. The first element in winning a fight is to know you are in one. I wonder if the Republicans know. They complain of bias, that is all. There is no aggressive attack offered in return for the aggressive attack from the main stream media on them.
While it may seem impossible to fight the main stream media, it is not. The main stream media is in a lot of trouble. As the Columbia J School piece says, Newspapers are going bankrupt, and some are closing their doors. The Columbia School of Journalism thinks this is bad and offers ways to save journalists from losing their jobs. They propose we use some "collectivist" (don't call it subsidy) solution so these people can continue to spew their left wing biased propaganda out and call it unbiased news. "Lets tax the internet providers and give the money to the journalists." That has an appeal. Push the competition down and make them give money to the poor journalists.
Instead, I suggest we continue to find ways to encourage the journalists' demise:
1) Embarrass them. Their accuracy has always been horrible. Point that out.
2) Discredit them by pointing out their bias.
3) Replace them with other forms.
4) If necessary, encourage a conservative boycott. (this last seems to be happening with no leadership or encouragement at all, but we could make it worse for them if we organized).
We are already living without good unbiased journalism in the main stream media. Don't subsidize them, let them go. They failed in their task.
Jerry
No comments:
Post a Comment