Quote :

"Kerry aims to rescue newspapers. Troubled by the possible shuttering of his hometown paper, Sen. John Kerry reached out to the Boston Globe on Tuesday, then called for Senate hearings to address the woes of the nation's print media. America's newspapers are struggling to survive, and while there will be serious consequences in terms of the lives and financial security of the employees involved, including hundreds at the Globe, there will also be serious consequences for our democracy where diversity of opinion and strong debate are paramount," Mr. Kerry said. "I am committed to your fight, committed to your industry and committed to ensuring that the vital public service newspapers provide does not disappear," Mr. Kerry told the Globe employees. "

No..No..No..No..No!

Enough with the Bail-Outs already.

If the internetz have doomed the newspaper...then so be it.

The gov't should not be picking and choosing who gets to recieve free freedom of the press. We don't need the type of "diversity of opinion" and "strong debate" that would come with state involvement and ownership of newspapers. If Obama can fire the CEO of GM, then he can easily get rid of any editor or writer who is, in his opinion, "misleading the American people."

If Kerry pines for printer's ink, then let him ask his wife to buy him the Boston Globe for Christmas. He can do the whole Citizen Kane schtick if he wants...Just don't use anymore tax-payer money!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/22/kerry-aims-to-rescue-newspaper-industry/

4/23/2009 2:12:39 AM

I don't know why he's getting into it. His political career is pretty much over, he doesn't stand to gain much by pocketing a media outlet.

4/23/2009 2:58:05 AM

John Kerry's plan is awesome simply because it will elicit hysterical crying like this^^ everywhere on the internet. Epic trolling, GG kerry.

[Edited on April 23, 2009 at 9:04 AM. Reason : s]

4/23/2009 8:57:29 AM

I agree EarthDogg.

Washington should have learned something from Bush's auto bailout. He put $$ into a failing system to avoid bankruptcy and all he did was prolong the inevitable. All he did was waste millions of taxpayer dollars!

These failing industries have to restructure and repackage themselves to become profitable again. This is free market 101.

4/23/2009 9:05:38 AM

Quote :

"In February, a study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism found that in the past two decades, the number of American news organizations accredited to cover Congress fell by two-thirds - from 564 in 1985 to 160 in early 2007. More cutbacks have been made since then. Washington once hosted 71 newspaper bureaus; now there are 25. Policy-influencing, special-interest publications and foreign newspapers, however, have multiplied. For example, in 1968, there were 160 foreign journalists in Washington. Now there are nearly 800. "

This makes me feel good about our Democracy.

4/23/2009 9:36:41 AM

my god

have we not discussed this yet?

it's been talked about for months

oh that's right

"new subject" same fucking horseshit from the lot of you

[Edited on April 23, 2009 at 10:16 AM. Reason : why aren't you in charge you fucking genius?]

4/23/2009 10:14:47 AM

^^ yeah, i heard an interview the other day by a former journalist (it was actually David Simon, the creator of The Wire) who made the point that while newspapers like to blame all their woes on the Internet, they've been shrinking their staffs and coverage considerably since the 80s. He was laid off from a Baltimore paper in 1995, in the 3rd round of layoffs in the previous 5 years, clearly before the internet started making a splash. He said that it's been a long time that newspapers have simply been a way to sell ads, and they have to find someone to write content to fill in the blank spaces. And now that ad prices are tanking, their chickens are coming home to roost, so to say.

Also, he makes an interesting prediction based on the demise of all the local papers and basically all local reporting. Local reporters used to be the watchdogs of city councils and mayors. Now, most small and medium cities, and even several large ones, don't have a single journalist who follows what happens in local politics. That gap is going to be taken advantage of, and local/state politicians are going to start getting more and more dirty and corrupt, since apparently no one is looking.

4/23/2009 10:22:02 AM

that's fucking old hat

this shit is no mystery

it's been happening since the 90s

the public desires no public watchdog, otherwise they'd still buy newspapers

but let's throw a fucking tea party and suck each others dick for a day an pretend we're just now becoming outraged

and then go to burger king and put on some weight

4/23/2009 10:35:16 AM

Quote :

"This makes me feel good about our Democracy."

OK I'm going to assume your point is that it's a bad sign that fewer newspapers are keeping a cynical eye on those rascally politicians in Washington.

But whose fault is this?

Is our education system really doing a good job of producing independent, critically-thinking people? Or are they just popping out poor saps with hardly any sense of their country's original principles, and a mentality that gov't will take care of us..so why worry?

Newspapers like every other business are affected by supply and demand. Not enough people are interested in their form of information-giving, so they suffer. They are paying higher-than-market prices for their Labor Unions, so they suffer.

Another problem for modern main-stream newspapers is their left-wing slant. Journalism schools are producing young turks who aren't as interested in the boring job of objectively reporting the facts. They want to change the world for the better. Readers are seeing through journalists' assurances that they are being objective. You can look at almost any story from a big newspaper today and spot the left-leaning slant. And a lot of people are getting fed up with it.

So today's newspapers have some chickens coming home to roost. They have spent the last few generations helping produce the type of citizen who doesn't really want to read about current events. And if it's really important, they'll get it from either John Stewart or Rush Limbaugh.

[Edited on April 23, 2009 at 10:35 AM. Reason : .]

4/23/2009 10:35:17 AM

maybe we should privatize everything so pepsi cola can tell me how to feel

or maybe you can blame the government for all your woes

or just blame liberals since it seems they're somehow driving all the right-wingers from journalism into business school

gotta blame somebody

cause it obviously can't be you

4/23/2009 10:37:51 AM

I was going to respond later, but shit like this

Quote :

"They have spent the last few generations helping produce the type of citizen who doesn't really want to read about current events."

is why I can't take you more seriously than I'd like to. The big news papers still do produce good content on a daily basis. The days of deep throat are quite possibly gone (ie, I've been expecting some sort of bombshell story from inside of Wall Street about rampant fraud, but it hasn't happened and I guess it won't), but that doesn't at all mean these papers are "helping produce the type of citizen who doesn't really want to read about current events". That's so asinine that it could only be cooked up in the brain of Savage or Rush railing on about the main stream left leaning media. Blame mp3s, iPhones, xboxes, and getting fat for making people too busy to be watchdogs, but ffs, blaming the newspapers? gtfo

4/23/2009 10:58:16 AM

Quote :

"the public desires no public watchdog, otherwise they'd still buy newspapers"

Don't fucking pat yourself on the back too hard, now. Newspapers - and mass media more broadly - have been so deferential to those in power in order to secure and maintain access that their watchdog function has all but grown mute.

4/23/2009 11:02:42 AM

don't worry, i'm keen on that

the bottom line is advertising... selling shit to vapid fleshbags

for example, fox news claims frustration with the way things are in the country

but not to the extent to take down their parent company, one of the largest peddlers of the shit they "loathe"

morality indeed

people like the way things are

if they didn't they'd be out in the streets right now

but i guess not

i'm too busy crying on tww

[Edited on April 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM. Reason : +]

4/23/2009 11:09:52 AM

Quote :

"Last month, Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin, Maryland Democrat, introduced the Newspaper Revitalization Act" that would allow papers to operate as nonprofits, prompting many analysts to examine the political implications of the tactic. "

Do we really want the newspaper industry turned into NPR? A semi-gov't supported agency with some financial contributions from giant industries?

Are you ready for the News and Observer Spring Membership Drive?

[Edited on April 23, 2009 at 11:17 AM. Reason : .]

4/23/2009 11:17:30 AM

Quote :

"Another problem for modern main-stream newspapers is their left-wing slant. Journalism schools are producing young turks who aren't as interested in the boring job of objectively reporting the facts. They want to change the world for the better. Readers are seeing through journalists' assurances that they are being objective. You can look at almost any story from a big newspaper today and spot the left-leaning slant. And a lot of people are getting fed up with it."

Oh come the fuck on. This has been a talk radio line as long as newspapers have been suffering. Is there any proof at all that this suffering can be attributed to the great liberal conspiracy to take over the media? I'm suprised someone as market oriented as you can't just see what's happened plain and simple: the market has shifted to online sources, which has complicated advertising as we attempt to find the best way to utilize it on the internet, which in turn reduced money brought in by papers, which in turn leads to reduced profits, layoffs, and the decline of some papers (most of which so far have been in large outlets with multiple papers).

It's not entirely the truth that papers are all tanking. Alternative media like The Independent and Yes! Weekly in Greensboro are doing quite well serving their niche, not to mention they do a better job on investigative and local stories and (shocker here) are probably what you would count among "liberal" papers. They just didn't have the massive size to begin with that would allow for a decline.

But yes, it's not just the fault of the financial issues the internet presents, it's also people getting mad at liberal papers finally. And the unions (all 2% in NC). And probably George Soros too.

Quote :

"Do we really want the newspaper industry turned into NPR? A semi-gov't supported agency with some financial contributions from giant industries?"

I missed where non-profit meant government subsidized. That's new to me.

[Edited on April 23, 2009 at 11:20 AM. Reason : .]

4/23/2009 11:19:28 AM

you know what's better than network news?

PBS news

OH GOD THAT'S RIGHT

THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP WILL OBVIOUSLY BE "THE DAILY WORKER"

[Edited on April 23, 2009 at 11:23 AM. Reason : lol NPR]

4/23/2009 11:21:00 AM

If Barack Obama gets his way, all news except for The Daily Kos will be banned. Write a letter to your editor now and let them know that Obama and George Soros and probably Hugo Chavez don't run America.

4/23/2009 11:27:53 AM

THE FINAL SOLUTION!

as it is implied in the first post

4/23/2009 11:32:02 AM

Quote :

"He said that it's been a long time that newspapers have simply been a way to sell ads, and they have to find someone to write content to fill in the blank spaces. And now that ad prices are tanking, their chickens are coming home to roost, so to say."

Yeah, and when the goal is to fill space, a lot of times you sacrifice the more pricey stories ie investigative reporting. This is why they've opened the Pulitzers to the internet now, fewer investigatives in the space-sensitive papers, more of them online.

4/23/2009 11:36:48 AM

Quote :

"It's not entirely the truth that papers are all tanking. "

Agreed. Smaller alternative papers with a clear editorial slant are doing better than the big-city papers which keep claiming objectivity where there clearly is none. And also agreed that the internet is cleaning their clock.

Quote :

"And the unions (all 2% in NC). "

Remember that the article is about how Kerry wants the rest of the country to bail out the Boston Globe. A paper that is heavily influenced by Unions. So NC taxpayers would be paying for high Union wages in other states in order to keep these papers afloat.

Quote :

"I missed where non-profit meant government subsidized"

I get your point. But it's pretty clear that the end result of Kerry's hearings will be some type of call for gov't funding of certain favored newspapers. You know, to preserve objective journalism.

4/23/2009 11:38:35 AM

Quote :

"Remember that the article is about how Kerry wants the rest of the country to bail out the Boston Globe. A paper that is heavily influenced by Unions. So NC taxpayers would be paying for high Union wages in other states in order to keep these papers afloat. "

I'm not saying this isn't a stupid idea, I was moreso commenting on how you always find some way to bash unions (esp that imaginary nc teacher's union).

4/23/2009 11:42:28 AM

online media is overtaking print media?

[OMG NEW]

gg John Kerry

4/23/2009 11:48:59 AM

online media is only overtaking print media in terms of volume and "loudness", not in terms of quality or actual journalism.

4/23/2009 1:24:58 PM

Quote :

"online media is only overtaking print media in terms of volume and "loudness", not in terms of quality or actual journalism."

This is debatable. My gf quit at the Roanoke Times not long ago and a lot of her friends still work there. They've laid off some of the most highly respected true journalists they had in the past year or 2 because they were too costly to keep on staff, mostly because they expected the paper to finance investigative reporting or lifestyles and entertainment reporting that involved a lot more production time and access to events and such. Instead, they've focused more on hyper-local stories that are of interest to most Roanokers but don't cost much to write (little travel, quick turnaround).

So in summary, to save money papers are less likely to go after stories that have a higher potential for groundbreaking journalism, and we suffer because of this.

I expect that soon local papers and major national papers with a reputation that provides them a big audience (WaPo, NYT, LAT, maybe WSJ) will start charging minor fees per article sometime, perhaps a few cents per page viewed or a yearly subscription that runs about 25 cents to a dollar a day. This will either put print and the internet on equal footing, allow for the final elimination of the costly print industry (eliminating distribution, printing costs, etc), or drive people to other free sources. I don't think free sources can fill in the holes that a bigger paper has though. The Indy Weekly has money to cover local stuff, but people will keep going to the big papers, whether online or not, for national and international news or special interest stories of a national nature (movies, sports, style, etc).

Either that or people will get all their news from Fox et al and the US will cease to exist in roughly 2089.

4/23/2009 1:49:45 PM

Quote :

"This is debatable"

it is debatable, and your story is also anecdotal - i don't think that is a trend.

Quote :

" I expect that soon local papers and major national papers with a reputation that provides them a big audience (WaPo, NYT, LAT, maybe WSJ) will start charging minor fees per article sometime,"

doubt it. Papers like NYT and WSJ have already done that, and it didn't/doesn't work. That's the "problem" with the internet. Sure, maybe some people will pony up and pay to get NYT articles online (maybe people who have been reading the dead tree version for years and years), but most people will just look for their news elsewhere. And we now have a generation of people under ~30 who have never paid to get their news, and that's a trend that likely going to continue.

Quote :

"Either that or people will get all their news from Fox et al and the US will cease to exist in roughly 2089. "

well, yeah.... i'm with you 100% on that one

4/23/2009 3:15:35 PM

ya this is pretty rediculous.

4/23/2009 3:49:21 PM

Quote :

"it is debatable, and your story is also anecdotal - i don't think that is a trend."

fwiw, there was an interview w/ a former pulitzer winner from the WaPo the other day I heard on NPR where he said basically the same thing. he got out because the money wasn't there, people weren't throwing money his way for big-time investigative stuff like what he won his prizes for. he wasn't the only one, apparently he's forming a new news organization of former investigative journalists who left other news orgs for the same sort of thing.

4/24/2009 3:10:51 PM

online media is taking over print media in terms of everything

4/24/2009 3:23:15 PM

hell no!

[Edited on April 25, 2009 at 4:58 PM. Reason : w]

4/25/2009 4:58:02 PM

4/27/2009 9:09:21 AM

Quote :

" So in summary, to save money papers are less likely to go after stories that have a higher potential for groundbreaking journalism, and we suffer because of this."

I disagree. The national papers are not going anywhere, neither are the TV news networks, and they still have every bit the incentive the old papers had.

4/27/2009 9:33:35 AM

Things to Come was a pretty good movie. HG Wells basically taking on the forces that would slow progress, whether it was war or neo-Luddite sentiments.

4/27/2009 1:10:30 PM

Quote :

"I disagree. The national papers are not going anywhere, neither are the TV news networks, and they still have every bit the incentive the old papers had."

Do you read the news regularly or just have binary pumped into your robot brain?

4/28/2009 4:57:45 PM

Quote :

"The national papers are not going anywhere"

except they're losing print and moving everything to digital

when all the old people who still read print newspapers die off, so will the majority of print newspapers

i'm not saying there won't always be a website for the New York Times or Chicago Tribune, but you're fooling yourself if you don't think their print numbers have taken a huge hit, and will continue to take a huge hit...(relatively) nobody wants to advertise in print papers anymore when they can instead invest in an online ad...hence newspapers around the country have been downsizing for the last few years at least, circulation is down, subscriptions are down

[Edited on April 28, 2009 at 5:18 PM. Reason : .]

4/28/2009 5:17:24 PM

Egon Spengler said it best: "Print is dead."

4/28/2009 8:45:09 PM

^^ Neither the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune are national papers. USA Today is not going anywhere.

4/29/2009 12:40:41 AM

My point is that cable tv and the internet have severely decreased circulation of print papers...while some might always exist, many large regional papers and local papers have already limited or stopped publication and this will continue...why should i subscribe to a newspaper when i can pull up all the articles online in 5 seconds? print newspapers are dying due to technology, who knows if they ever die out completely but they've certainly been decreasing at a large rate

4/29/2009 9:54:49 PM

most print newspapers need to move to friday through/ or sunday only and focus on the interactive side during the week with video, link resources and of course comments/blog discussion

but in the print editions.... they need to have things that can't be found in an online paper

like fold-out maps, document reproductions, "gift cards" and subscriber codes with access to on-line mp3s, movs, etc, samples of products, collected & magazine style archives of what they've written for the week, more emphasis on photography and illustration

some of this is already happening, but they didn't move on it til the bitter end

but honestly

newspapers and internet don't mean a thing if people don't do anything but complain

4/29/2009 10:33:05 PM

bump

9/21/2009 8:06:12 AM

Obama open to newspaper bailout bill
09/20/09

Quote :

"The president said he is 'happy to look at' bills before Congress that would give struggling news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as nonprofit businesses. 'I haven't seen detailed proposals yet, but I'll be happy to look at them,' Obama told the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade in an interview."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/59523-obama-open-to-newspaper-bailout-bill

9/21/2009 8:23:43 AM

Quote :

"'I haven't seen detailed proposals yet, but I'll be happy to look at them,' "

HOW DARE HE

9/21/2009 9:19:39 AM

^ kooksaw things Obama hates white people… do you really expect any part of his brain to work rationally?

9/21/2009 9:21:26 AM

Why would they need a bill? Are not non-profits already tax free?

9/21/2009 9:39:17 AM

i don't know how non-profit newspapers work, but non-profit radio stations are limited in how they can advertise which might limit the possibility of a non-profit newspaper to raise enough revenue. so maybe they are hoping to tailor a non-profit status for print/web news? i don't know.

9/21/2009 9:56:14 AM

Quote :

"Why would they need a bill? Are not non-profits already tax free?"

Well considering that newspapers don't have the benefit of that filing status in most cases...

I mean, you do know that you can buy stock in The NY Times Company or Gannett or McClatchy etc. right?

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 10:50 AM. Reason : .]

9/21/2009 10:49:27 AM

^x5 yes, now you have it--how dare he.

^^^^ hooksaw's a poopyhead!

S. 673

A BILL

To allow certain newspapers to be treated as described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code.

Quote :

"3/24/2009--Introduced. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to exempt from income taxation a newspaper corporation or organization if: (1) it publishes on a regular basis a newspaper for general circulation; (2) its newspaper contains local, national, and international news stories of interest to the general public and the distribution of such newspaper is necessary or valuable in achieving an educational purpose; and (3) the preparation of the material contained in such newspaper follows a methodology generally accepted as educational. Exempts the advertising income of a tax-exempt newspaper corporation or organization from taxation as unrelated business income and allows a charitable tax deduction for contributions to such newspaper corporation or organization."

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-673&tab=summary

9/21/2009 12:10:43 PM

this, of course, should not happen, primarily because newspapers are liberals but also because newspapers are liberals.

9/21/2009 12:18:58 PM

The term bailout doesn't really apply to the proposed bill, at least in the common usage and recent examples of bailout being a cash hand out from the government.

The rolly-eyes don't really explain a lot--why is the creation of a non-profit newspaper under 501(c)(3) bad?

9/21/2009 2:52:56 PM

^ For starters, ever heard of competition? Despite socialist drivel, it actually makes companies better. What will be the incentive to compete for, say, firsts in breaking news, accuracy, balanced coverage?

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 3:12 PM. Reason : And concerning "bailout," take it up with The Hill. ]

9/21/2009 3:10:28 PM

The market is good at allocating resources, but that doesn't change the fact that it's only as smart as the people acting within it, and unfortunately too many people are as irrational as lemmings.

How about this: do you think that people should have to have a monetary incentive to tell the truth? How can competition ensure that people will get the truth as opposed to just whatever is the most fun to look at. Come on now, you can't seriously think that most profitable=most educational. If that was true, then Transformers 2 wouldn't have been the biggest movie of the summer.

And also, how are newspapers being run as non-profits bad? Should we have a running policy of forcing all institutions to compete for profit? How about charities? Schools?

9/21/2009 3:31:26 PM