A 10-point plan for the government to shore up local newspapers (From The Seattle Times' publisher)
- Thread starter Mr. X
- Start date
The Big Ragu
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2002
- Messages
- 30,281
That is authoritarianism in the name of a “crisis.”
The crisis in this country is what people like Frank Blethen have done to our government, feeling empowered to demand legistlation that steals from others and dictates choices to everyone else through coercion, based on what THEY value. It has turned our government into a fiscal ****show that is economically destroying the country from within, and it has made our legislative process into a game of government stampeding on people’s civil and economic liberties based on ever-changing populist rhetoric that tries to mask the fact that it's despotism.
His ten points:
1) That Journalism Competition and Preservation Act is the typical “call a bill the exact opposite of what it is” that has become the norm. Competition necessitates free negotiation and voluntary exchange. Saying that what actual competition gives is "unfair" has become the basis for newspeak. The basis of that bill (which I believe they dropped) was the exact opposite. It put our government in charge of those negotiations, giving artificial cartel power to media organizations that do not have that leverage without the government forcing the big tech companies to pay more than what actual free and fair negotiations set as prices. It’s the picking of winners and losers. And it costs all of us. … Financially, and in terms of choices.
2) That Local Journalism Sustainability Act is graft. It doesn’t “save jobs,” it would put our country into further debt and/ or tax people to force htem to subsidize jobs (and business enterprises) that are not being supported by actual demand (which is the product of voluntary exchange). It’s economically destructive, and an top of it, it puts our government in charge of the press in a fairly direct way by making it a benefactor. WHY anyone wants to open that barn door after 4 years of Donald Trump, astounds me.
3) As if the first two weren't enough. … He proposes subsidies. He's the spender of other people's money.
4) For taxation to be fair, it needs to be uniformly applied to people. I understand that we have a tax code that is a flammable mess because of all the winners and losers that past legislative graft has created. But if we are going to have a death tax (which I personally think is just more theft), it should be applied equally to everyone. HE shouldn’t be deciding that it should be used to screw everyone else, while HIS people need to be exempted. EVERYONE feels that way. … which is why our tax code is already so unfair. He's proposing more of the same -- destroying our country from within.
5) Difficult to respond to, because that is just rhetoric: "End the debilitating negative financial impact on newspapers from Big Tech’s monopoly on digital advertising." But he certainly has in mind government-enforced theft and coercion, just like the rest of his list.
6) More of the same. Give newspapers no-interest loans and grants. Who does that come at the expense of? What more economically productive things would that capital have funded if it hadn't been hijacked? Why doesn’t the next industry deserve to be the hand-picked winner instead of the loser in the game of graft he's a willing participant in?
7) Subsidization. … Force (this is coercion) these people to pay for those people’s newspapers and broadband.
8) More grants. At whose expense?
9) Why not? We can make the U.S. Postal Service into more of a sieve that adds to our national debt as we bankrupt our country because everyone has a populist idea for how the thing they value needs to be funded at the expense of everyone else.
10) He is proposing that our government ntervene in people’s PRIVATE economic activity, to tell someone with capital what they can and can’t do with it. This is authoritarianism.
I get that this is a journalism board and the industry has been decimated, so it's personal to people. But what he is proposing isn't virtuous (in the grand scheme of a democacy that is predicated on civil and economic liberty), it's immoral and despotic.
The crisis in this country is what people like Frank Blethen have done to our government, feeling empowered to demand legistlation that steals from others and dictates choices to everyone else through coercion, based on what THEY value. It has turned our government into a fiscal ****show that is economically destroying the country from within, and it has made our legislative process into a game of government stampeding on people’s civil and economic liberties based on ever-changing populist rhetoric that tries to mask the fact that it's despotism.
His ten points:
1) That Journalism Competition and Preservation Act is the typical “call a bill the exact opposite of what it is” that has become the norm. Competition necessitates free negotiation and voluntary exchange. Saying that what actual competition gives is "unfair" has become the basis for newspeak. The basis of that bill (which I believe they dropped) was the exact opposite. It put our government in charge of those negotiations, giving artificial cartel power to media organizations that do not have that leverage without the government forcing the big tech companies to pay more than what actual free and fair negotiations set as prices. It’s the picking of winners and losers. And it costs all of us. … Financially, and in terms of choices.
2) That Local Journalism Sustainability Act is graft. It doesn’t “save jobs,” it would put our country into further debt and/ or tax people to force htem to subsidize jobs (and business enterprises) that are not being supported by actual demand (which is the product of voluntary exchange). It’s economically destructive, and an top of it, it puts our government in charge of the press in a fairly direct way by making it a benefactor. WHY anyone wants to open that barn door after 4 years of Donald Trump, astounds me.
3) As if the first two weren't enough. … He proposes subsidies. He's the spender of other people's money.
4) For taxation to be fair, it needs to be uniformly applied to people. I understand that we have a tax code that is a flammable mess because of all the winners and losers that past legislative graft has created. But if we are going to have a death tax (which I personally think is just more theft), it should be applied equally to everyone. HE shouldn’t be deciding that it should be used to screw everyone else, while HIS people need to be exempted. EVERYONE feels that way. … which is why our tax code is already so unfair. He's proposing more of the same -- destroying our country from within.
5) Difficult to respond to, because that is just rhetoric: "End the debilitating negative financial impact on newspapers from Big Tech’s monopoly on digital advertising." But he certainly has in mind government-enforced theft and coercion, just like the rest of his list.
6) More of the same. Give newspapers no-interest loans and grants. Who does that come at the expense of? What more economically productive things would that capital have funded if it hadn't been hijacked? Why doesn’t the next industry deserve to be the hand-picked winner instead of the loser in the game of graft he's a willing participant in?
7) Subsidization. … Force (this is coercion) these people to pay for those people’s newspapers and broadband.
8) More grants. At whose expense?
9) Why not? We can make the U.S. Postal Service into more of a sieve that adds to our national debt as we bankrupt our country because everyone has a populist idea for how the thing they value needs to be funded at the expense of everyone else.
10) He is proposing that our government ntervene in people’s PRIVATE economic activity, to tell someone with capital what they can and can’t do with it. This is authoritarianism.
I get that this is a journalism board and the industry has been decimated, so it's personal to people. But what he is proposing isn't virtuous (in the grand scheme of a democacy that is predicated on civil and economic liberty), it's immoral and despotic.
Last edited:
Azrael
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2010
- Messages
- 28,883
Azrael
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2010
- Messages
- 28,883
garrow
Well-Known Member
I would rather be governed by the first 10 names on the Seattle Times masthead than this Congress. —William F. Buckley
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 7,334
I don't understand why one bad idea justifies another.
I Should Coco
Well-Known Member
I’ll tread carefully here, as this man and his family own my shop …
But part of the problem with Blethen’s 10-point plan is assuming the public WANTS locally owned newspapers to read and to be saved.
His problem, and our problem for those of us who still work as journalists, isn’t just that Big Tech steals our reporting for free and profits from it (which is certainly true). It’s that much of the younger population has no interest in local journalism in any format or medium.
You can’t force people to eat their vegetables. You have to make them understand why they are healthy and good for them.
Maybe tax breaks and government subsidies gives newspapers a better chance to do that. But I too am very wary of opening the door to government influence on reporting.
I would love Blethen or someone else whose newspaper has grant-funded positions through Microsoft or other well- intentioned corporations to tell me if that money has affected their reporting on those corporations. Or if it’s affecting the equipment and software they use.
But part of the problem with Blethen’s 10-point plan is assuming the public WANTS locally owned newspapers to read and to be saved.
His problem, and our problem for those of us who still work as journalists, isn’t just that Big Tech steals our reporting for free and profits from it (which is certainly true). It’s that much of the younger population has no interest in local journalism in any format or medium.
You can’t force people to eat their vegetables. You have to make them understand why they are healthy and good for them.
Maybe tax breaks and government subsidies gives newspapers a better chance to do that. But I too am very wary of opening the door to government influence on reporting.
I would love Blethen or someone else whose newspaper has grant-funded positions through Microsoft or other well- intentioned corporations to tell me if that money has affected their reporting on those corporations. Or if it’s affecting the equipment and software they use.
I Should Coco
Well-Known Member
That's a good point, and to me, a sign of a strong newspaper with good ownership/leadership is one that has a pretty solid wall between the advertising department and the newsroom.
Unfortunately, the amount of print and classified advertising has plummeted so much in the past 10-15 years it's hard to judge that anymore.
I Should Coco
Well-Known Member
You must be looking at the website of a Hagadone Newspaper ;)
Seriously, I've worked at a half-dozen different "locally owned" newspapers in my career, and the Hagadone papers were the worst for A1 stories featuring either advertisers or the Hagadone family's own business ventures. Even working on the copy desk, you felt like you needed a shower after your shift.
Azrael
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2010
- Messages
- 28,883
Free enterprise doesn't necessarily equal free speech.
Again:
https://www.oah.org/tah/issues/2018/august/the-inadequacy-of-american-press-freedom/
Over the course of the twentieth century, Americans provided the press unprecedented freedom to publish what it wanted, but did not build equally robust protections for the public’s right to access information. Today, Americans are once again beginning to realize that freedom of the press alone cannot produce a democratic media. The task now is to protect and revitalize the public’s ability to access high-quality information, what Walter Lippmann once called the “stream of news.”
Again:
https://www.oah.org/tah/issues/2018/august/the-inadequacy-of-american-press-freedom/
Over the course of the twentieth century, Americans provided the press unprecedented freedom to publish what it wanted, but did not build equally robust protections for the public’s right to access information. Today, Americans are once again beginning to realize that freedom of the press alone cannot produce a democratic media. The task now is to protect and revitalize the public’s ability to access high-quality information, what Walter Lippmann once called the “stream of news.”
cake in the rain
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 324
The barriers to entry for people who wish to become news-providers have never been lower in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD.
This is dead-tree newspaper protectionism, nothing more.
This is dead-tree newspaper protectionism, nothing more.
Azrael
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2010
- Messages
- 28,883
cake in the rain
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 324
1. Create a product that people wish to pay for, or that advertisers would like to sponsor.
2. Live happily ever after.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 7,334
It's a business. The 'freedom of the press' is no guarantee that the business in any way should survive.
The Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of the press protections are technical, not professional.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
