1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Conn. pols talk JRC rescue

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by goalmouth, Nov 25, 2008.

  1. goalmouth

    goalmouth Well-Known Member

  2. mustangj17

    mustangj17 Active Member

    Wouldn't it be an amazing turn of events if the gov't actually saved some of our jobs and did this?
  3. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    If there's any company on the face of the beautiful blue earth that deserves to be bailed out less than JRC, it's hard to imagine.

    The only way this should even be considered is if Bob Jelenic is sentenced to spend the rest of his cancer-ridden life in neck and leg irons in a debtor's prison (after every goddamn nickel of his personal fortune is confiscated at knife-point and applied to the employees' health-care plans first, of course).
  4. DCguy

    DCguy Member

    Ready to play devil's advocate (and really, I'm just trying to spark a debate, not get my head ripped off) ...

    A week ago or so, Mitt Romney (not someone I ever agree with) wrote in the NYT that it'd be better to let the automotive industry go bankrupt, which would force the Big Three to streamline everything and re-evaluate its business model. Of course the downside to that is so many people losing their jobs, but the upside is that the future of the business might be better.

    Now I know I don't want to lose my job, and I don't want my friends in newspapers across the country to lose theirs, but wouldn't it serve the future of the newspaper industry better to suffer a bitter defeat, like Romney suggested for the American auto industry, and try to retool and fight back in a more efficient way? In the short term, it would royally suck. In the long term, it might be for the best.

    I also know the argument against the non-bailout is simple: There are too many people at risk to let newspapers (or American auto companies) fail, and the options for retooling are far fewer for newspapers than for car makers, who just need to maximize fuel efficiency and go green.

    As an aside, CEOs of these failing companies should be fired. Both the auto and newspaper industries need new leaders.

    What does everyone think?
  5. forever_town

    forever_town Well-Known Member

    I'd have to go along with what Nancy Pelosi said about the proposed automaker bailout: Show me the plan, we'll show you the money.

    A no-strings attached bailout would be a reward for bad business practices. Perhaps blowing the whole thing up and rebuilding from the ground floor is what is needed.
  6. GB-Hack

    GB-Hack Active Member

    I see where you're coming from DC. I think the problem is no-one appears to know how the newspaper industry can be re-tooled at this point in order to make it a success again. That to me is different from where the car companies are, where it appears greater investment and employment in research and building greener, fuel-efficient cars is the path that needs to be taken.

    People are trying new things in newspapering, but none of them appear to be working. As that happens, the debt piles up and more layoffs and cuts are made to keep everything afloat. The need to find what can and will work to turn this around has never been more pressing, but no-one has struck upon it yet.

    Should we let the current system fail, and build a new journalism with a new business model? Maybe. But the personal repercussions that would entail are as unappetising as letting The Big Three fail to those in the auto industry. Some kind of center between the two needs to be found, but what it is, I don't know. Heck, if I did, I'd likely be a lot wealthier than I am.
  7. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    Or something like that
  8. Ice9

    Ice9 Active Member

    I think that's the most insightful post I've read all week.
  9. Another interesting aspect of the plan is that when these bailouts occur, the government usually takes some sort of financial stock in the companies. The bailouts aren't simply money given away. If that bailed out company succeeds, the government gets money back. So the government is an actual investor in the companies.

    So if that same approach would be taken with media companies, the government would have a financial stake in them. That gets into some murky water where the question of objectivity concerning the government comes into play. Having no idea what the stipulations of such a buyout would be in Connecticut, that conflict may not even come into play. And even if it did, would that be an acceptable consequence to save people's jobs and public information sources?
  10. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    Amazing as I hope you are using a blue font. Should newspapers be sponsored on the federal, state or local level? Which newspapers get the shaft and which ones get saved?

    Oh, there's the whole ethics and conflict of interest thing as well.
  11. GB-Hack

    GB-Hack Active Member

    Hey, it worked for Pravda, didn't it?
  12. jfs1000

    jfs1000 Member

    Two points.

    1. The first is newspapers play a civic role. That alone makes them an important part of the community. At their best, they are not sole profit vehicles. So, letting them die doesn't help the community. Not sure it rises to the level of bailout though.

    The auto industry is much different.

    2. The problem about letting the auto industry fail is it will devastate a state, destroy a city and put millions on the unemployed line in the entire United States.

    Think of how many GM related services there are for cars. Not only does detroit lose jobs, but there are also part distributors, drivers, shippers. Those employees, millions of them, don't go to the store and buy things which destroys retail.

    Then you go to the wholesalers and dealers. Eventually eveyone in the United States is affected. A whole economy fails.

    That then creates a glut of workers for other jobs, driving down salaries. What happens then? Home sales go in the tank because people can't afford homes.
    GM and the rest of the big 3 can wreck the economy.

    Mitt Romney is so rich it is obnoxious, and it shows. He sees an opportunity to fix the business and make it more lean and profitable for SHAREHOLDERS. It's all about the shareholders and the investors with this guy. He sees it as an opportunity to destroy a union. He isn't operating in our world.

    In theory he is right. Evetually, the business would come back stronger and leaner and cheaper with innovative survivors. But, does that help the working man and the economy?

    I don't think so.

    If the Govt doesn't bail out and these companies do indeed fail (big if) and cease to exist, then goverment services will be overwhelmed. Unemployment, welfare, health insurance etc.

    It will destroy several cities in the rust belt. That will lead to more government intervention and cost on the backend in social services.

    With the Big 3 gone, then the towns that depend on them will have to cut schools, police, and city services because there is no tax base.

    Once again, social services would be overwhelmed and incredibly expensive. The loss of local tax revenue would be astounding.

    So, how would you, as a taxpayer, rather pay for the calamity? Keep them afloat, keep the worker productive and working and making things and give the big 3 a chance to turn around?


    Would you let them fail, let misery reign because that is the free market, and then allow our tax dollars to be paid out in social services like welfare, food stamps, health care, and basic city services?

    One option chooses using taxpayers moeny and keep people productive.

    The other is straight welfare for sitting at home and does nothing productive.

    Mitt Romney doesn't get it. Taxpayers pay EITHER WAY.

    Now, which one is the real smart choice?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page