Yes, the FTC study on the “reinventing of journalism” has already been covered here over the last few days, but I figured fuck it: let’s give it some more ink while we still can — before the government’s “potential reforms” to the industry maybe kick in and rescue us all from the “distraction” of unsanctioned and unlicensed voices commenting on the day’s events. From the LA Times, “Obama’s FTC plan to reinvent America’s news media”:
The study notes those industry-wide revival efforts and adds:
There are reasons for concern that experimentation may not produce a robust and sustainable business model for commercial journalism. History in the United States shows that readers of the news have never paid anywhere close to the full cost of providing the news. Rather, journalism always has been subsidized to a large extent by, for example, the federal government, political parties, or advertising.
True, there have been government subsidies over the decades in the form of below-cost postal rates and printing contracts. But this FTC study is rated R for anyone who thinks the federal government, the object of copious news coverage itself, has no business deciding which sectors of the private media business survive and thrive through its support, subsidies and encouragement with things like tax incentives.
Yet that’s what this Obama administration paper is suggesting as another of the ex-community organizer’s galactic reform plans.
Would you believe: major changes to the copyright law, including government licensing provisions; government pilot programs to investigate potential new media business models, antitrust changes to allow media companies to unite on imposing online pay walls, establish a journalism division of AmeriCorps with government underwriting the training of young journalists, tax incentives per news employee, increased funding of public broadcasting, a 5% tax on consumer electronics and/or assessments on users of public airwaves.
Another idea would be to allow taxpayers to direct a portion of their taxes — perhaps up to $200 — to a specific media institution as payment for media services rendered.
Well, you’re already being asked to pay for your own free health care. Why should paying for government propaganda bother you any more?
I mean, at least they aren’t billing your family for the bullet yet, right?
FREEDOM!
“…establish a journalism division of AmeriCorps with government underwriting the training of young journalists”
Like, I thought we already have the American Pravda in the form of NPR; that is as long as we confine the boosterism to a particular ideology. And this is all we need, AmeriCorps choosing a bunch of college kids who can’t get jobs otherwise, owing to Obama’s failed economic policies of course, to essentially be enrolled in the equivalent of graduate school for far-left-wing indoctrination…
“…tax incentives per news employee…”
Oh goody, lets give tax incentives to businesses that produce nothing! while we jack up the rates on any upstart opressive h8terz who do!
“…increased funding of public broadcasting…”
In other words, more NPR-esque programming on public TV. More of that great Tavis Smiley, Bill Moyers, and Charlie Rose programming. Maybe Air America can finally! make a comeback. Or, hey, maybe Garrison Keiler can get a prime-time hour of reich-wing hate to compete against Bill O’Reilly? I mean, if it’s government funded anyway, who cares if anyone watches! At least there’ll be plenty of frothing clips of him scolding Rethugs! to re-run on all of the network news shows-getting tax credits for each minute rebroadcast of course…
“…a 5% tax on consumer electronics and/or assessments on users of public airwaves.”
And you will know that the full on Europeanization of America will have occurred when, like in Germany, one is taxed based on each radio/television/internet device one has.
This is all a bunch of BS. A reactionary approach by the left wing
DemocratsSocialist beacasue they are terrified at the rate which their complete and airtight control over “the narrative” is slipping away. No one talked about these problems when they were using every available outlet to vilify Boooooooooooooooooosh! Then it was legitimate, speaking trooooooooooooof! to pow-ahh!If nobody wants to read a certain publication, or view/listen to a broadcast program, it should be allowed to go out of business.
What’s next? Making sure that the certain sitcoms keep running, regardless of popular appeal, because they portray a niche lifestyle/situation?
…before the government’s “potential reforms” to the industry maybe kick in and rescue us all from the “distraction” of unsanctioned and unlicensed voices commenting on the day’s events.
Anything not prohibited will be compulsory.
You were OUTLAW! before OUTLAW! was cool, man. Never forget that.
fucking 1984.
We’re too stupid to 1) Purchase worthy newspapers and 2) distinguish legitimate news on our own.
We need big brother.
I’m listing PW for my $200, after all, “not just anybody can summarize the news”.
I really do not like those fuckers.
They clearly think that we are all as estupido as willie the racist hilljack skin flute player.
The only time I buy my local paper is Sunday to get the sale flyers. For the past 4 Sundays they have not managed to have all the ones I look at in any given paper. I have to leaf through before buying and then hunt the missing one[s] down in another one in the stack.
One sided reporting, bad grammar, and now they can’t even get the paid ads inserted.
This stuff doesn’t even surprise me any more. They will continue to overreach until they are smacked down.
This is disconcerting. I’m not surprised by these types of proposals, it’s just the sheer volume. It’s like as soon as they took office, the prime directive was to fundamentally revise the way EVERY STINKING THING is done. Is the purpose to throw so much against the wall that some will stick? Because Lord knows, they haven’t posted anything I would consider an unequivocal victory so far.
I got it, a new agency-The Ministry of Appallingly Bad Ideas!
“Rather, journalism always has been subsidized to a large extent by, for example, the federal government, political parties, or advertising.”
The above sentence is attempt #134,998 to blur the lines between private market transactions and government actions. Selling an advertisment to a private party that benefits the exposure, as a means of partly covering the costs of producing a consumer product, does not represent a subsidy.
In a similar fashion, ObamaCare supporters argued that the private insurance market effectively “rations” health care because prices and insurance contracts contribute to limiting of access/supply.
Byron York reveals further demonstrable contempt of the press at the hands of Robert Gibbs. As the press puts up with this humiliation they invite nothing but public contempt as well.
KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!
Don’t call me Neil.
[…] Worth repeating […]
Well, what the hell did we think he meant by “CHANGE?” We’re getting our change, good and hard.
Oh, brother. Wasn’t one season of My Two Dads more than enough?