• 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

EpicDude86 said:
It's very worth allowing Newspapers to fail. It would reduce the cost of creating tons of paper and ink to print these daily wastes of space, when all the information could be easily replicated and posted online with FAR less resources. People can still subscribe to newspapers, just online.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but unfortunately, those old papers are the last bastion of responsible, professional journalism left. They need to find a way to switch to the internet. They should have a long time ago.
 
Assume that Rep. Waxman had simple and pure motivation to preserve the journalistic integrity of newspaper journalists. Assume that the newspapers are a mixture of journalism that comes out even in the end. So get all of that out of the equation.

What Rep. Waxman is saying is that we, as a nation, need this class of journalism to continue and thus we should find a method to preserve it into the future for the sake of our nation. Possible methods of preservation presented were make them non-profit organizations and thus able to take advantage of the tax codes. Fund them with public money. Give them tax breaks and allow corporations to gain tax breaks by funding them.

But is this the best way to approach saving them? Historically this has been tried over and over again - see many of the previous arguments made that detail the carriage, passenger railroad, telegraph, etc. industries that were protected in one or more of the proposed methods in the past.

So let us look at other means to improve things. What do we find? We find that the Wall Street Journal is a growing business and doing fine by offering its subscribers both a printed version and an online version. The online version requires a subscription in order to access the majority of the information available in an issue. This is a business method that both works and requires no action from the federal government. So would it not be better if Rep Waxman concentrated on tax breaks or incentives that would aid in converting the failing newspapers over to the same business model?
 
misterman said:
Maybe, but unfortunately, those old papers are the last bastion of responsible, professional journalism left. They need to find a way to switch to the internet. They should have a long time ago.
Click to expand...
Sure. And it is up to them, not the government, to make that happen.
 
MrVicchio said:
Think of all the other industries that fell to changes in technology.

Like the Telegraph. That was VITAL VITAL to the world! But those damn dirty telephones ran them out of business!

How about cruise liners for actual travel (Not just for fun)? Airplanes replaced them! All those jobs lost!

Or, passenger trains! Oh wait, we saved them....
Click to expand...

The pony express was replaced by the telegraph before that.

Both of the advances you sight led to more and better paying jobs eventually.

Sadly the use of the term "help shape the media" is double speak for controlling content and eliminating all opposition to the left wing Socialist/Communist agenda. It's part of a well known pattern used by leftist though out history, a perfect example of this is the Hugo Chavez take over of most radio to shut down opposition to his dictatorship.
 
SE102 said:
Just look at NPR its one of the best newsources in the states and its publicly funded and not having any trouble from what I know.

The newsources online from the newpapers themselves are just hampered by unsustainable revenue models because of the nature of internet advertising recently, theres no way to make good money off of it. The alternative is to make their internet service a pay service.
Click to expand...

NPR is a very liberal newsource. Of course its not having any financial trouble. As you said, they are publicly funded. Whenever they need more money, they run to Congress and ask for more.
 
misterman said:
Maybe, but unfortunately, those old papers are the last bastion of responsible, professional journalism left. They need to find a way to switch to the internet. They should have a long time ago.
Click to expand...

X_X Those same "bastions of responsible, professional journalism" :lol: are also on the internet now.
 
Gill said:
NPR is a very liberal newsource. Of course its not having any financial trouble. As you said, they are publicly funded. Whenever they need more money, they run to Congress and ask for more.
Click to expand...

Well, no, they get public money indirectly, not straight from Congress, and most comes from listeners and private donors.

It's not "very liberal" either.
 
misterman said:
Some are. But not enough.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. What matters is what people are willing to pay for. Why bail out an industry, whether the Gov't even takes control or not, if that industry is just going to tank when the bailout or assistance runs dry?
 
MrVicchio said:
Oh so it's a distribution problem
Click to expand...

At least you got it right the fourth try. That's better then your normal average.

Oh silly me. People are seeking to get their information from other sources so obviously the government should step in and fix it.
Click to expand...

Other sources? Uh...the website of a newspaper is the same source, just in a different form. Again, distribution problem.

Maybe you didn't get it the fourth time.

Oh silly of me not to see this before!
Click to expand...

Well, you don't see the obvious. Even when you argue the opposite of your own graph and articles. Again, you don't read. You just assume what you wish to be true.

It's not that people aren't wanting the product, no no, it's distribution!
Click to expand...

Still pretending that the websites of newspapers aren't getting huge amounts of hits eh?

Oh I forgot. Your FEELINGS say that the product is the problem despite 60+ MILLION page hits and MILLIONS of unique IDs visiting newspaper websites for the same content.

I CAN'T STOP THESE FEELINGS! OH THESE FEELINGS! SO MANY FEELINGS!

They should pass a law forcing all american's to subscribe to Government approved papers. To solve this dire problem!
Click to expand...

Or you could just read the actual text of the speech for a change.

I CAN'T STOP THESE FEELINGS! OH THESE FEELINGS! SO MANY FEELINGS!

What is so amusing about your behavior is you defended Bush against the speculative feelings of liberals...yet you have problem doing the same thing here. HYPOCRITE.
 
misterman said:
Well, no, they get public money indirectly, not straight from Congress, and most comes from listeners and private donors.

It's not "very liberal" either.
Click to expand...
NPR is very liberal. They even joke about it.
 
misterman said:
Well, no, they get public money indirectly, not straight from Congress, and most comes from listeners and private donors.

It's not "very liberal" either.
Click to expand...

Indirectly through the Corp. for Public Broadcasting. Not sure what that has to do with my comment though. They still get a large share of their money, around $100 million, from the government trough. That's not even counting indirect payments like use of government satellites.

Name a few conservative regular programs on NPR.
 
WSJ online, growing successful business model.

That's all need be said OC.

If people are turning to other methods of news, if certain companies cannot make a profit, then they just need to go away.

You say there is a vital need for the Journalist product, I agree. However, let the market figure out the best way to create a profitable product that people are willing to pay for.

Why is that concept beyond you?
 
MrVicchio said:
WSJ online, growing successful business model.

That's all need be said OC.
Click to expand...

Did I disagree with that at all? No. WSJ did an excellent job on charging for its online content. A few others do a good job in this as well. What general newspapers have failed to do (and I wonder if you will ever understand this extremely simple concept) is put up a toll gate on their web content.

The problem again for what? The 6th time? is distribution. If product was the problem, no one would go to their sites. Except despite your deliberate avoidance of my argument to the contrary because it's easier for you to pretend evidence that doesn't support your position doesn't exist (are you a creationist btw?), there are plenty of people going to their websites suggesting content ain't the issue.

If people are turning to other methods of news, if certain companies cannot make a profit, then they just need to go away.
Click to expand...

Or they simply need to put up a toll gate. Imagine that. The primary problem is how do you charge people for general content that many providers are still providing for free? Niche providers of niche content bypass this problem. And ad revenue for general content has never been very lucrative opposed to ad content for niche content such as Bloomberg. This is primary the reason why many general content papers haven't moved quickly into forcing paid online subscriptions.

You say there is a vital need for the Journalist product, I agree.
Click to expand...

I did? Where? Actually, I wouldn't mind having 95% of our media go the way of the dinosaurs. Most of it is awful, dishonest and insanely inaccurate.

However, let the market figure out the best way to create a profitable product that people are willing to pay for.

Why is that concept beyond you?
Click to expand...

You still don't get it do you?

I'm mostly on your case for your inability to honestly discuss what the speech was about.

Notice the constant mockery revolving around feelings? Yeah. You aren't working on the facts of the speech. Just your feelings. Which makes you a giant hypocrite in your defense of Bush against the feelings of others.

You still don't get that I don't disagree with the basic premise of your beliefs. It's just that you go to extreme lengths in dishonest ways while completely ignoring the actual facts on the ground and nuanced views. Do I have problems with Zyplin or RightInNYC or many other right leaning posters? No. Because they have nuanced, fact based views. You don't.
 
Last edited:
"They will need to shape the media?"....BWAHAHAHA....where have you people been for the last hundred years?:rofl
 
obvious Child said:
Did I disagree with that at all? No. WSJ did an excellent job on charging for its online content. A few others do a good job in this as well. What general newspapers have failed to do (and I wonder if you will ever understand this extremely simple concept) is put up a toll gate on their web content.

The problem again for what? The 6th time? is distribution. If product was the problem, no one would go to their sites. Except despite your deliberate avoidance of my argument to the contrary because it's easier for you to pretend evidence that doesn't support your position doesn't exist (are you a creationist btw?), there are plenty of people going to their websites suggesting content ain't the issue.
Click to expand...

What you don't seem to understand is that although plenty of people go to the dinosaur media web sites, they only go because its free. The content is not worth paying for, just like the print version isn't worth the price.

The WSJ and few others are increasing circulation, print and web, because they have a product people are willing to pay for.

You call it a distribution problem, everyone else knows its a content problem. They have content that is not worth paying for.
 
Gill said:
What you don't seem to understand is that although plenty of people go to the dinosaur media web sites, they only go because its free. The content is not worth paying for, just like the print version isn't worth the price.

The WSJ and few others are increasing circulation, print and web, because they have a product people are willing to pay for.

You call it a distribution problem, everyone else knows its a content problem. They have content that is not worth paying for.
Click to expand...

BINGO.

OC, you claim that it's about the content being "free" that's the problem. What's stopping them FROM CHARGING FOR IT?
 
Gill said:
NPR is a very liberal newsource. Of course its not having any financial trouble. As you said, they are publicly funded. Whenever they need more money, they run to Congress and ask for more.
Click to expand...

It is not liberal whatsoever. They actually go out of their way to ignore some of the idiotic **** republicans do. Its a good news source, that makes it liberal enough in your eyes I assume. They are responsible for the right being able to save any face at all in alot of cases.
 
SE102 said:
It is not liberal whatsoever. They actually go out of their way to ignore some of the idiotic **** republicans do. Its a good news source, that makes it liberal enough in your eyes I assume. They are responsible for the right being able to save any face at all in alot of cases.
Click to expand...

That you think NPR isn't left wing means you don't really vary your news sources.
 
I watch aljazeera, NPR, foxnews on occasion, CNN, BBC and whatever google news brings me on the web.

In a planet full of media most of them stake their prestige and reputation on being unbiased sources of information. I wouldn't seek out a rightwing news source to compare them to cept foxnews.

Maybe to a tiny domestic poltical point of view trapped between two diametrically opposed absolutes you can properly place value of liberal and conservative on a 2 dimensional scale but that simply isnt how news works.
 
Gill said:
NPR is a very liberal newsource. Of course its not having any financial trouble. As you said, they are publicly funded. Whenever they need more money, they run to Congress and ask for more.
Click to expand...


You do not know very much about NPR or its history.
 
SE102 said:
It is not liberal whatsoever. They actually go out of their way to ignore some of the idiotic **** republicans do. Its a good news source, that makes it liberal enough in your eyes I assume. They are responsible for the right being able to save any face at all in alot of cases.
Click to expand...

IF the NPR isn't a Liberal Mouthpiece then I'm going to be the next President of the United State and win by a landslide.
 
If you have a problem with all the world's media when it doesn't pander directly to you for profit, the problem is with you, not the media.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom