Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Newspapers Subsidies

So guess who is gonna be lining up for their share of the bailout? Tribune Media, The New York Times and other giant newspapers. It turns out that they are in horrible financial shape. Of course they wont really talk to much about that, but it turns out that newspaper subscriptions are at an all time low. Huh, strange. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that by the time I get my morning gazette, I have seen the news on my favorite 24 hour cable news station, but I have also read about it all over the web, including an obligatory trip to Wikipedia (no one wants the truth anymore) and probably blogged about it. Plus when I watch the TV news there is no reading involved and if I do read it on the web then I don't have to worry about getting nasty newsprint on my fingers. Now, I will say for disciplining the dog (Sorry Harley) nothing works better then a good old fashioned New York Post but that's about it.

So I say either adapt, or die. Its Darwin at its finest. Now, I know that's cold but I believe that giving money to these media companies is a very dangerous idea. I mean these are the people who are molding public opinion. Do you really feel comfortable with trusting our politicians to honestly and fairly dispense tax payers money to these companies? I surely do not. A bailout would essentially create state owned newspapers. Sounds a little scary doesn't it? Also the newspapers would be afraid to criticize whomever was in elected office out of fear that they would not receive government funding. It would makes today's slanted news look like campaign commercials.

What you need to understand about newspapers, tv news shows and online media outlets is that they like Walmart are a business. The more people that buy their papers, and watch their programs and visit their websites, the more money they make. Think about it, you really think that news people are above sensationalizing stories for ratings. Dan Rather passed off a fake story about President Bush during his reelection campaign. It was a disgrace and ended up costing Dan his career (and rightfully so). So do you really think that these people can be trusted with taking money from the government and not being biased in the process? They are the ones who are rooting for disaster anyway. Ironically the worse things get, the better it will be for them. That means they are rooting against us, rooting against America. Kind of puts a chill down your spine. After all they have tremendous influence over what we think and how we act and yet they benefit from our downfall? Yikes.

So I will say what I always say, I believe in a free market. I dont believe that we should be bailing anybody out. Sink or swim, thats what I always say. If you are unable to make it, then you have been extincted. Time to evolve into something that works.


Jeff Avitabile said...

Man Oh man where do I start?

The Government already owns the main stream media. If you need proof of this go find an article written prior to the invasion of Iraq, that questions the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction. Or for that matter any article written that did not support that invasion.

Find me an article written in the MSM that has talked about the abuses of power by the Administration and does not justify it.

NYT broke a front page article in August of 08' about the Pentagons "domestic propaganda program" and how all the major networks were manipulated to push pentagon talking points..and still no mention in the MSM (besides this one story). ABC news is still employing the persons identified in the article as "message multipliers" and presents said person to it's audience as an independent analyst.

When was the last article done about the Red Cross report that has come out last week? Easily the most damning and disturbing report to date about the abuses our Government is doing in our names.

Dan Rather read a story off a teleprompter that was critical of the Presidents Service Record. For reading a story he did not write or research, and a story had no reason to question. The company who asked him to read it IMO was told what was allowed and was was not and picking on the President was clearly not allowed...Dan Rather was promptly fired, his 24 year career over.. If that is not proof of government control I am not sure what is.

Phil Donahue was the highest rated show on MSNBC at the time it was canceled. It has been reported that an internal NBC memo stated Donahue should be fired because he would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war" He was the only one i knew of that started asking questions about the need to go to war.

I could list example after example..Glen Greenwald has done an amazing job at pointing this out, he also shows how the ones who did hardcore investigative journalism and had legitemet questions about the government's claims were the ones who were pushed to the page 15c on the Sunday edition, if printed at all.

I love your anti-bailout talk but i feel the Old media is a dying institution that ca't be saved, and in it's current form I would not want saved. Just as you described how the media would be manipulated by bailout money, that is already happening but instead of direct cash controlling needs the government for access to stories. If the news agency runs a story critical of the Government they simply will not let them in on the next big "scoops". This exact thing was described in the NYT Pentagon Propaganda story....

But keep up your anti-state talk!!! You know i love that!!!

Hamertek The Great said...

I agree that there is an incredible amount of bias in today's main stream media. My concern is that it will get even worse with the infusion of government money or even worse the threat of withholding money. That was the main point was making. That, and my love of free market and non-government interference into the private sector.