• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman

You know I just don't remember our Founders shaping the media.
 
Am I missing something here? It has long been the platform of the liberal to oppose government subsidies to businesses of any kind. The newspaper business should be no exception. They run on a profit model like any other.

The only difference I can see here is that unlike the farmer for instance, who actually produces something tangible for the country's survival, or Oil companies who would do the same should the punitive restrictions be lifted on them, newspapers are little more than a sounding board of the liberal left these days.

I guess that is why all of the sudden people like Waxman feel the urgent need to save them.


j-mac
 
Am I missing something here? It has long been the platform of the liberal to oppose government subsidies to businesses of any kind. The newspaper business should be no exception. They run on a profit model like any other.

The only difference I can see here is that unlike the farmer for instance, who actually produces something tangible for the country's survival, or Oil companies who would do the same should the punitive restrictions be lifted on them, newspapers are little more than a sounding board of the liberal left these days.

I guess that is why all of the sudden people like Waxman feel the urgent need to save them.


j-mac
Newspapers cause the genicide of lots of trees too. Why does the govt want to subsidize genicide?
 
Newspapers cause the genicide of lots of trees too. Why does the govt want to subsidize genicide?


No doubt. I guess the concern of the Spotted Owl, or Neon striped snipe is of no concern when it comes to mindless, sycophant drivel marketed at .75 cents a clip.


j-mac
 
Obvious Child loves to decry partisan hackery, yet this thread proves what a partisan hack OC is at heart.

Newspapers and other Journalism business will have to adapt to the changes, or fail. Having the Government subsidize them is about the worst possible solution one can imagine.
 
Waxman said:
Waxman urged policymakers in both parties to look into how they can support new legal or tax structures for media organizations, foster more philanthropic support, explore new sources of journalism, and consider more public funding for quality journalism, among other issues.

Stepping from the scary "government must be involved" scenerio into what is meant by government's role is highlighted above.

The concern is that you need quality journalism to exist for a democracy to be vibrant. A good example of that is media outlets like C-Span, NPR and news on public television. C-Span is nonprofit. NPR and Public Televsion originated with government funding and is by far superior to any other traditional media outlets in the US. Newspapers have been an excellent source of quality news because it allows an issue to be explored in depth and not just in a sound bite. If these types of organizations fail and you're left with nothing more than large profit news, the democracy DOES suffer.

I think if you compare how society is changed, there is far more entertainment options to compete for people's time. That lowers the demand for quality news and starts making news services unable to maintain profitability. But if these services fail, are there enough quality options still available? I would say that the majority of society is apoliitical compared to most of you who post here. This failing demand can effect the quality of news reporting.

Really, Waxman's suggestions are not that unreasonable. Read them carefully. Government is in charge to determine tax laws-not unusual. The concept of media outlets being funded as non-profits is an interesting concept and not unlike C-Span which provides high quality,, direct to the source, hard news with little fluff (not really entertaining at all, but extremely informative, we're not talking Rush Limbaugh vs Ed Schultz here or the cliff notes version of political news). Exploring new outlets goes into whether or not we do need to move away from the old sources of news or expand the media being offered. An example of this is my public radio outlet no longer calls itself public radio but "public media" which reflects internet reporting, blogs and podcasts as part of their services.

I don't know if my explanation can move you away from the scary government concept, but what Waxman is talking about is already here.

(PS-most newspapers are conservative. I've seen studies before on this and I'm sure you'll find them if you look. Of course you're free to do the usual "all media are liberals" routine, but I ask you to look at little deeper on this if you want the reality of that industry.)
 
Last edited:
Obvious Child loves to decry partisan hackery, yet this thread proves what a partisan hack OC is at heart.

Newspapers and other Journalism business will have to adapt to the changes, or fail. Having the Government subsidize them is about the worst possible solution one can imagine.
I would say it directly opposes the 1st Amendment.
 
Stepping from the scary "government must be involved" scenerio into what is meant by government's role is highlighted above.

The concern is that you need quality journalism to exist for a democracy to be vibrant. A good example of that is media outlets like C-Span, NPR and news on public television. C-Span is nonprofit. NPR and Public Televsion originated with government funding and is by far superior to any other traditional media outlets in the US. Newspapers have been an excellent source of quality news because it allows an issue to be explored in depth and not just in a sound bite. If these types of organizations fail and you're left with nothing more than large profit news, the democracy DOES suffer.

I think if you compare how society is changed, there is far more entertainment options to compete for people's time. That lowers the demand for quality news and starts making news services unable to maintain profitability. But if these services fail, are there enough quality options still available? I would say that the majority of society is apoliitical compared to most of you who post here. This failing demand can effect the quality of news reporting.

Really, Waxman's suggestions are not that unreasonable. Read them carefully. Government is in charge to determine tax laws-not unusual. The concept of media outlets being funded as non-profits is an interesting concept and not unlike C-Span which provides high quality,, direct to the source, hard news with little fluff (not really entertaining at all, but extremely informative, we're not talking Rush Limbaugh vs Ed Schultz here or the cliff notes version of political news). Exploring new outlets goes into whether or not we do need to move away from the old sources of news or expand the media being offered. An example of this is my public radio outlet no longer calls itself public radio but "public media" which reflects internet reporting, blogs and podcasts as part of their services.

I don't know if my explanation can move you away from the scary government concept, but what Waxman is talking about is already here.

(PS-most newspapers are conservative. I've seen studies before on this and I'm sure you'll find them if you look. Of course you're free to do the usual "all media are liberals" routine, but I ask you to look at little deeper on this if you want the reality of that industry.)

Yes, they are very VERY unreasonable.

And here's why. A free, independent media must exist on it's own merit, with no financial strings attached courtesy of the Government.

Why is it Liberals are so unable to accept that businesses from time to time, fail because they have outlived their ability to be profitable? What, do you people think that there are only X amount of Businesses, and if we don't save them that industry will cease to exist?

Why are "Progressives" so afraid of change, and so desperate to keep the status quo?
 
Yes, they are very VERY unreasonable.

And here's why. A free, independent media must exist on it's own merit, with no financial strings attached courtesy of the Government.

Why is it Liberals are so unable to accept that businesses from time to time, fail because they have outlived their ability to be profitable? What, do you people think that there are only X amount of Businesses, and if we don't save them that industry will cease to exist?

Why are "Progressives" so afraid of change, and so desperate to keep the status quo?


You missing a couple of major points. Simply existing does not by itself reflect the quality of a product. CNN or FOX exist because they provide enough soundbites that people can tune in and out which reflect the hectic pace of life and people's lowered time to invest in quality news. A quality news product may not be able to exist in comparison to fluff quick news. (Think of a quality restaurant with few patrons compared to McDonald's quick in and out eating).

The current setup of newspapers may be doomed to fail and that is what is why he suggests exploring newer options of news. The problem here is not so much losing newspapers, but losing the quality of the type of news that newspapers offer to a Democracy.. That is, newspapers give a more in depth view of an issue presented beyond the soundbyte. But if you lose those organization that produce news, what appears in their place? Quality news or McDonald's news? An educated electorate is extremely important to the vibrancy of a Democracy. Isn't part of the Conservative argument against Obama's election is that people are uninformed and made a bad decision? Isn't that an important issue that we should be concerned about?
 
.

A free, independent media must exist on it's own merit, with no financial strings attached courtesy of the Government.

Side issue: Can this ever really exist? All tradition media has owners and doesn't that mean that "free, independent" news is free in what the ownership decides to report.

So you have fear of government control, but don't we also have to fear corporate control of free and independent information? The business model does not guarantee free and independent news. Only that it is profitable.
 
Side issue: Can this ever really exist? All tradition media has owners and doesn't that mean that "free, independent" news is free in what the ownership decides to report.

So you have fear of government control, but don't we also have to fear corporate control of free and independent information? The business model does not guarantee free and independent news. Only that it is profitable.


Ofcourse journalism can exist, and be profitable. Since news papers rely on advertising more so than subscriptions, then it is an adherence to basic journalistic principles that will win the day in that regard, delivering the most readers, and thus the widest audience to advertisers for potential customers.

News papers like the NYTimes, and alike have been largely responsible for their own demise in recent times. It used to be that reporting the news was left to the meat and potatoes of the paper, and the Op-Ed pages was where you could find the ideological bent of the editorial staff. That seems to disappear during conservative presidencies. What we are left with in journalism are people that graduate with an eye toward 'changing the world' instead of what should be the goal, reporting the facts.

People are smarter than the liberal elites give them credit for, and see right through the BS delivered in the daily bird cage liner. You mentioned NPR, and C-SPAN in your comments above, both which are operated totally by taxpayer dollars, and other funding like the Carnegie Foundation. While sans Washington Journal, C-Span offers an unbiased look only when it simply turns the cameras on in congress and steps back. Other than that they have a leaning that is clear. NPR is just blatant. Arguably one of the most left leaning sources of News available. But neither are papers are they? And since our discussion is on that I will defer to the topic at hand.

Government control will not rid the papers of voices on the right like is the hope of liberals, it will only force a hand of open deceit like is found in Venezuela.


j-mac
 
Side issue: Can this ever really exist? All tradition media has owners and doesn't that mean that "free, independent" news is free in what the ownership decides to report.

So you have fear of government control, but don't we also have to fear corporate control of free and independent information? The business model does not guarantee free and independent news. Only that it is profitable.

You have no clue what I am talking about when I saw free do you?

I don't care about Corporate ownership of a news organization. Do you know why? If say the American Morning News owned by Mega Corp. puts out an inferior product, in this case news... it will lose circulation, and eventually become a liability to Mega Corp. Who will be forced to either eat the loss, or sell off the paper (or just shut it down).

If Government owns/pays for a newspaper to stay afloat, not only will they not have to put out a solid product, not only will they continue to be a drain on the tax payer, it will ensure the reporting be subpar and very likely to NOT be too critical of those in Washington keeping it running.


You obviously, like OC above, have no concept of Free Enterprise nor do you appreciate the power of the markets.
 
Side issue: Can this ever really exist? All tradition media has owners and doesn't that mean that "free, independent" news is free in what the ownership decides to report.

So you have fear of government control, but don't we also have to fear corporate control of free and independent information? The business model does not guarantee free and independent news. Only that it is profitable.
So what you're saying is that real journalism never existed because news sources were profit driven.....including Benjamin Franklin. Furthermore, profit-driven industries are inherently evil and the government is not.
 
Last edited:
So what you're saying is that real journalism never existed because news sources were profit driven.....including Benjamin Franklin. Furthermore, profit-driven industries are inherently evil and the government is not.


No, you are not reading my posts. The competitiveness of entertainment to hard news is definitely more extreme than in the past. You cannot deny that this is a different environment than Benjamin Franklin faced.

And you argue that government assistance is inherently evil and profit-driven industries are not? Actually I never said that and neither did you because neither view is accurate. You want my opinon, read my posts but don't project your own beliefs to me.
 
You have no clue what I am talking about when I saw free do you?

I don't care about Corporate ownership of a news organization. Do you know why? If say the American Morning News owned by Mega Corp. puts out an inferior product, in this case news... it will lose circulation, and eventually become a liability to Mega Corp. Who will be forced to either eat the loss, or sell off the paper (or just shut it down).

If Government owns/pays for a newspaper to stay afloat, not only will they not have to put out a solid product, not only will they continue to be a drain on the tax payer, it will ensure the reporting be subpar and very likely to NOT be too critical of those in Washington keeping it running.


You obviously, like OC above, have no concept of Free Enterprise nor do you appreciate the power of the markets.

Apparently I don't know what you meant by free. I thought "free" meant open news information but it also can mean a paper you didn't pay for like the free weeklies you see out on the corner. Why are you more concerned about media profits than the quality of the product?

It is not automatic that corporate products are superior. Right now if you compared CNN to C-Span, I would think that you would agree that C-Span has a better quality program. Yet, C-Span is non-profit. Also if you compared Air America to NPR, you would also find that NPR puts out a better product. Yet both CNN and Air America are more profitable. It is a myth that free enterprise automatically equals better product in all cases.

I am not sure where you get the concept that the article you quote is talking about government purchasing newspapers. The article never makes that suggestion--why are you?
 
Apparently I don't know what you meant by free. I thought "free" meant open news information but it also can mean a paper you didn't pay for like the free weeklies you see out on the corner. Why are you more concerned about media profits than the quality of the product?

It is not automatic that corporate products are superior. Right now if you compared CNN to C-Span, I would think that you would agree that C-Span has a better quality program. Yet, C-Span is non-profit. Also if you compared Air America to NPR, you would also find that NPR puts out a better product. Yet both CNN and Air America are more profitable. It is a myth that free enterprise automatically equals better product in all cases.

I am not sure where you get the concept that the article you quote is talking about government purchasing newspapers. The article never makes that suggestion--why are you?

My granddaughter's lemonade stand is more profitable that Air America and it won't be long before she beats CNN at the rate they're going.
 
My granddaughter's lemonade stand is more profitable that Air America and it won't be long before she beats CNN at the rate they're going.

She probably is. I heard that the lemonade she makes is really watered down but the customers fall for her excellent sales pitch.

:wink:
 
She probably is. I heard that the lemonade she makes is really watered down but the customers fall for her excellent sales pitch.

:wink:

Watered down Lemonade has more flavor than Airhead America and CNN.
 
Watered down Lemonade has more flavor than Airhead America and CNN.

And a lot more people come around to hear her talk, even though she's only 8.
 
Watered down Lemonade has more flavor than Airhead America and CNN.


and with your comments, you prove my point. I list myself as very liberal but I don't listen or watch either one without feeling like I'm wasting my time. You can't honestly say the same thing about NPR or C-Span. (although you got to be a fanatic to watch C-Span for long periods of time.)
 
You can't honestly say the same thing about NPR or C-Span. (although you got to be a fanatic to watch C-Span for long periods of time.)

I dont listen to NPR,but C-Span is pretty good (I'm a fanatic :mrgreen:)
 
Obvious Child loves to decry partisan hackery, yet this thread proves what a partisan hack OC is at heart.

By pointing out how the same stuff happened under Bush.

And by pointing out how it has happened for hundreds if not thousands of years.

I guess by being historically objective, recognizing that politicians have doing this for years and naming specific examples that makes me a partisan in your eyes.

It's pretty clear you define "partisan hack" as anyone who disagrees with you the same way Navy Pride defines "liberal" as anyone who disagrees with him.

I also noticed your utter failure to show how I am wrong on a single point here. Imagine that. You can't actually refute me, so you throw around insults as if they compensated for your utter lack of any knowledge and debate skills.

Newspapers and other Journalism business will have to adapt to the changes, or fail. Having the Government subsidize them is about the worst possible solution one can imagine.

Except that you fail to notice this happens everywhere. I named a specific example of family farms tax changes which did not generate much income (or any) that was passed under Bush which is a direct subsidization of them. Did you even acknowledge it? No, because a Republican engaged in welfare, therefore it is okay to you.

I'm still waiting for one of you geniuses to show how changing amortization time lines results in what you are claiming. Good luck with that.

I do find it amusing that three people who have never proven me wrong on anything and run away from hard questions I asked them thanked you.
 
Yes, they are very VERY unreasonable.

And here's why. A free, independent media must exist on it's own merit, with no financial strings attached courtesy of the Government.

Why is it Liberals are so unable to accept that businesses from time to time, fail because they have outlived their ability to be profitable? What, do you people think that there are only X amount of Businesses, and if we don't save them that industry will cease to exist?

Why are "Progressives" so afraid of change, and so desperate to keep the status quo?

You must enjoy the taste of fail. After all, you keep coming back for more.

Your point was refuted before you even posted:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-shape-u-s-media-waxman-7.html#post1058402340
 
Of course journalism can exist, and be profitable. Since news papers rely on advertising more so than subscriptions, then it is an adherence to basic journalistic principles that will win the day in that regard, delivering the most readers, and thus the widest audience to advertisers for potential customers.

Which is a problem that results in a crappy media. Something that Zyphlin eluded to. When profit is the major drive to media, they pander to specific biases to increase revenue resulting in exceedingly unreliable, one sided and otherwise not useful for democratic process.

Furthermore, everyone here except me seems to ignore how the current tax law is something the media requires for growth. Not to mention the legalistic copyright structure. Would there be media without that? Not in the form we have. Like it or not, the media has always been dependent. But the partisans here pretend it's not because a democrat said something.

News papers like the NYTimes, and alike have been largely responsible for their own demise in recent times. It used to be that reporting the news was left to the meat and potatoes of the paper, and the Op-Ed pages was where you could find the ideological bent of the editorial staff. That seems to disappear during conservative presidencies. What we are left with in journalism are people that graduate with an eye toward 'changing the world' instead of what should be the goal, reporting the facts.

Uh no. Newspapers as an entire industry is responsible for its demise because they failed to change with the times. You are ignoring how newspapers across the country pandering to every political bias are having problems. The only ones that aren't are largely the niche business ones that professionals are willing to pay for. This is why you are a partisan. Rather then address the actual underlying objective business model reality, you pander to anti-liberal notions. Newspapers fail because people get their news from varying sources. Reliance upon one is going the way of the dinosaurs. No one pays for the WSJ for its political opinions. They pay for the business aspects. No one pays for the financial times for its political opinions. They pay for the business insight. No one pays for Investors Business Daily for its political opinions. They pay for the business aspects. The Chicago Tribune has endorsed Republicans for decades. Guess who's on the not going to make it short list?

People are smarter than the liberal elites give them credit for, and see right through the BS delivered in the daily bird cage liner.

Then tell me why Republican and Conservative leaning papers are on the short list of going extinct as well?

Hint: It has nothing to do with bias. It has everything to do with competition of where one gets their media. Why pay for a newspaper when I can get the same news free online? Doesn't matter if you're a Cheney backer or Pelsoi supporter, free is still free.

You mentioned NPR, and C-SPAN in your comments above, both which are operated totally by taxpayer dollars, and other funding like the Carnegie Foundation. While sans Washington Journal, C-Span offers an unbiased look only when it simply turns the cameras on in congress and steps back. Other than that they have a leaning that is clear. NPR is just blatant. Arguably one of the most left leaning sources of News available. But neither are papers are they? And since our discussion is on that I will defer to the topic at hand.

Left leaning because they disagree with you? Or left leaning on some actual objective criteria? I agree that fully publicly funded is a bad idea because it allows politicians to monkey around with content, but that is hardly the same as allowing 501(c)(3) or changing amortization tables.

Government control will not rid the papers of voices on the right like is the hope of liberals, it will only force a hand of open deceit like is found in Venezuela.

Has that happened with industries we extended additional tax benefits to in the past?

Or are you as usual talking out of your butt?

The whole reason you are angry is because a Democrat said it. When Republicans engage in tax law changes, you say nothing because they are Republicans.
 
You have no clue what I am talking about when I saw free do you?

You have no idea what you are talking about when you discussed free. I already pointed out to Zyphlin how they are dependent upon the government as it is. You then made an argument I previously refuted as if it was still valid. And you deliberately ignored how my other previous posts showed that this changes literally nothing.

If Government owns/pays for a newspaper to stay afloat, not only will they not have to put out a solid product, not only will they continue to be a drain on the tax payer, it will ensure the reporting be subpar and very likely to NOT be too critical of those in Washington keeping it running.

Good job on admitting you did not read the article but as usually assumed what you wanted to be true without first examining the facts in any way that would show you put any effort into any of your posts in the slightest.

Tell me, did he mention nationalization? Or are you like J-mac talking out of your @ss? I'll ask this again, but I don't think you have the intelligence nor the guts to answer it:

Tell me how changing amortization tables results in your conclusion.

You obviously, like OC above, have no concept of Free Enterprise nor do you appreciate the power of the markets.

See above. Enjoying the constant taste of fail?

By the way, free enterprise doesn't exist. We have managed enterprise. Stop pretending you understanding anything about how the market actually functions. It's clear you do not.
 
Back
Top Bottom