• 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

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.

No my problem is this the 1st Adm Congress needs to go and re-learn it and stay out of anything involving the Media
 
How is this going to affect the journalistic integrity of the news affected by this?

You mean theres a communist party affiliate with direct control over the editors of these publications?

::makes cross with index fingers::

Stae Back, Ye Mad-Man!
 
How is this going to affect the journalistic integrity of the news affected by this?

You mean theres a communist party affiliate with direct control over the editors of these publications?

::makes cross with index fingers::



Stae Back, Ye Mad-Man!

No Congress has no business getting involved with the day to day or anything with the media what you are now saying that Congress should just throw out the 1st Adm.
 
What does it have to do with the first amendment?

..plz...:doh... explain...
 
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.

Which is just conjecture on your part. We don't actually know this.

The content is not worth paying for, just like the print version isn't worth the price.

Again, more conjecture on your part.

It is somewhat reasonable to assume your position, but it ignores a fundamental problem. As I already alluded to, general content has been in somewhat of a pickle in determining if online subscriptions will work. Why pay for one general content when you can get similar general content elsewhere?
Now, if all general content providers charged, would people be willing to pay?

It's not necessarily that the content is not worth paying for, it's that why pay when I can get it free elsewhere? What happens when you can't get it free? Will people pay? That's the real question that actually works on the facts on the ground.

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

Yes and no. WSJ and niche oriented providers have a product people are willing to pay for and a niche that has few competitors. It's a niche. Duh. What we have with general providers is a product that we don't know if people are willing to pay for online with lots of competitors. To actually get something we can work with, we need to change some of the factors. I highly suspect that many people are willing to pay for general content, but the question is how many and at what price.

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

Again, more conjecture on your part. Your argument ignores the issue of lots of free providers removing incentives for people to pay. If you take away the free access, will people pay? I don't know.

What we've seen with the movie/music industry is that a subset of people are willing to pay despite being able to get the content free. The issue for many of them is ease. The content itself is still the same.

Your argument from a superficial point makes some sense, but ignores a variety of very real factors that change personal choices. Until we can eliminate some of these factors, it's hard to say if the content is not worth paying for.
 
Last edited:
BINGO.

OC, you claim that it's about the content being "free" that's the problem. What's stopping them FROM CHARGING FOR IT?

Everyone else providing it free. Why would I charge when everyone else provides similar general content for free?

What would happen if everyone charged? Would people pay? At what price point? If you bothered to read my posts, you would have noticed I already dealt with this issue.
 
You do not know very much about NPR or its history.

Actually, yes I do. But since you didn't bother to offer any details, I'll assume that it is you that doesn't know much about NPR or you would have elaborated.
 
Which is just conjecture on your part. We don't actually know this.



Again, more conjecture on your part.

It is somewhat reasonable to assume your position, but it ignores a fundamental problem. As I already alluded to, general content has been in somewhat of a pickle in determining if online subscriptions will work. Why pay for one general content when you can get similar general content elsewhere?
Now, if all general content providers charged, would people be willing to pay?

It's not necessarily that the content is not worth paying for, it's that why pay when I can get it free elsewhere? What happens when you can't get it free? Will people pay? That's the real question that actually works on the facts on the ground.



Yes and no. WSJ and niche oriented providers have a product people are willing to pay for and a niche that has few competitors. It's a niche. Duh. What we have with general providers is a product that we don't know if people are willing to pay for online with lots of competitors. To actually get something we can work with, we need to change some of the factors. I highly suspect that many people are willing to pay for general content, but the question is how many and at what price.



Again, more conjecture on your part. Your argument ignores the issue of lots of free providers removing incentives for people to pay. If you take away the free access, will people pay? I don't know.

What we've seen with the movie/music industry is that a subset of people are willing to pay despite being able to get the content free. The issue for many of them is ease. The content itself is still the same.

Your argument from a superficial point makes some sense, but ignores a variety of very real factors that change personal choices. Until we can eliminate some of these factors, it's hard to say if the content is not worth paying for.

I don't consider it conjecture when the dinosaur media have been unable to charge for their content. The NY Times has tried twice and failed miserably each time. The WSJ has a flourishing online subscription business.

I think any reasonable person would admit that the WSJ has content worth paying for, while the NY Times does not.

We don't have to say if certain newspaper's content is worth paying for, subscribers have already decided.
 
No Congress has no business getting involved with the day to day or anything with the media what you are now saying that Congress should just throw out the 1st Adm.

How does any of this involve "day-to-day" involvement with the media?
 
I think any reasonable person would admit that the WSJ has content worth paying for, while the NY Times does not.

If that were true, the NYT would have failed years ago, as a paper publication. Yet it thrived. So obviously there is something else going on. The NYT still has millions of subscribers, it just hasn't cracked the online market as well. Most papers haven't.
 
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.

Congratulations, Mr. President.
 


It seems that the hyper-partisan hacks now use the Breaking News forum to post their partisan smear jobs as 'news'-worthy items.

Is any mod every going to do anything?

Vicchio, something a senator said off the cuff or out of context is not 'news'. It's not even a story. It's just a quote.

The BN guidelines need to be reformed so we don't have to wade through this garbage.
 
If that were true, the NYT would have failed years ago, as a paper publication. Yet it thrived. So obviously there is something else going on. The NYT still has millions of subscribers, it just hasn't cracked the online market as well. Most papers haven't.

The NYT IS failing. Circulation has dropped dramatically in the past ten years. It has a circulation of less than one million, while the WSJ has over 2 million subscribers. Circulation of the NYT has dropped over 7% in just the past year. They are on the brink of bankruptcy, which is why they were forced to sell part of their New York building. They were desperate for cash.

They are hardly "thriving".
 
Everyone else providing it free. Why would I charge when everyone else provides similar general content for free?

What would happen if everyone charged? Would people pay? At what price point? If you bothered to read my posts, you would have noticed I already dealt with this issue.

HAHAHAHA.

No, you didn't.


That's called "Free markets" dear. If you have a product worth paying for, they will come. What you are basically saying is many of these papers lack a quality product to draw enough subscribers to continue! Isn't that amazing?

So the Government should save them from their own failure?

I think not.
 
The NYT IS failing. Circulation has dropped dramatically in the past ten years. It has a circulation of less than one million, while the WSJ has over 2 million subscribers. Circulation of the NYT has dropped over 7% in just the past year. They are on the brink of bankruptcy, which is why they were forced to sell part of their New York building. They were desperate for cash.

They are hardly "thriving".

No, not now. But that's because they are losing out to the internet. Not because of their content. The point is that they did fine with their content until the internet came along. It's not a content problem. That's all.
 
It seems that the hyper-partisan hacks now use the Breaking News forum to post their partisan smear jobs as 'news'-worthy items.

Is any mod every going to do anything?

Vicchio, something a senator said off the cuff or out of context is not 'news'. It's not even a story. It's just a quote.

The BN guidelines need to be reformed so we don't have to wade through this garbage.

The moderator's obviously find your assessment to be... hyper partisan whining.
 
No, not now. But that's because they are losing out to the internet. Not because of their content. The point is that they did fine with their content until the internet came along. It's not a content problem. That's all.

So they either have to adapt to new markets or go out of business!

That's called life guys.
 
So they either have to adapt to new markets or go out of business!

That's called life guys.

Fine.

My point, which has yet to sink in, is their failure is not due to their content.
 
It seems that the hyper-partisan hacks now use the Breaking News forum to post their partisan smear jobs as 'news'-worthy items.
Yes, you do. What's yout point?
 
No, not now. But that's because they are losing out to the internet. Not because of their content. The point is that they did fine with their content until the internet came along. It's not a content problem. That's all.

Baloney. Why is the Wall Street Journal circulation so much higher???

They did fine with their content before the internet because nobody had another choice. CNN did fine before Fox News came along too, but now they are getting their butts kicked by Fox.

Do you claim that CNN's content is as popular as Fox's?? Of course not. Circulation numbers and ratings don't lie. Advertisers pay based on circulation, so the NYT is failing.
 
Fine.

My point, which has yet to sink in, is their failure is not due to their content.

Does it, in the end matter? If it's content or delivery, either way these companies either have to adapt or they go under. Propping them up via the government is not the solution.
 
Does it, in the end matter? If it's content or delivery, either way these companies either have to adapt or they go under. Propping them up via the government is not the solution.

It matters when I'm responding to someone's claim that it is content, yes. Which is all I was doing.
 
Fine.

My point, which has yet to sink in, is their failure is not due to their content.


Well, this may not be 100% true. It is a reality that the News Paper business made a huge mistake early on in the internet explosion of giving away their content for free. But, as the internet took over as the way that most get their news today, a shift also became prevalent in trends. And that is people are scanning for editorial content in hard news stories. And when confronted with that they tend to submit their vote with their dollars.

Take a look in here for example, how often do we hash over many of the same topics using our favorite sources that we tend to agree with editorially?

Never before would sites like Media Matters, or Wikipedia have been taken seriously in the realm of truth and honesty in reporting, but today since it backs up someone's opinion, regardless of whether or not truth is in play, then it is used. And the fallacy of the proof of negative comes into play.

News papers have fallen prey to building a political base just like a party, and that is their demise.


j-mac
 
Actually, yes I do. But since you didn't bother to offer any details, I'll assume that it is you that doesn't know much about NPR or you would have elaborated.


NPR has been assisted by the government but the amount has really shrunk. (I'll include the details on their current structure below). In the early 80's NPR went strongly in debt and they came close to going out of operation. They had to borrow money from the government BUT paid it all back and they restructured their financial setup at that time to charge individual stations subscription fees. They also changed many of their programs they produced and kept only the more popular ones. In the last few years, Congress has threatened a couple of time to slash the small amount of funding still being received but its always been beat back by both Conservatives and Liberals because most people appreciate the quality of their programs.

They are very rarely listed in ratings because they don't subscribe to it, but I know as of about ten years ago, the Chicago station WBEZ was among the top 10-13 stations being listened to in the Chicago market.

I'll been listening since 1977 which started with All Things Considered. It hasn't always for smooth. You got to appreciate a network that works hard to bring in serious people from both sides to discuss issues.



According to the 2005 financial statement, NPR makes just over half of its money from the fees and dues it charges member stations to receive programming, although some of this money originated at the CPB itself, in the form of pass-through grants to member stations.[12] About 2% of NPR's funding comes from bidding on government grants and programs, chiefly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; the remainder comes from member station dues, foundation grants, and corporate underwriting. Typically, NPR member stations raise funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, and grants from state governments, universities, and the CPB itself.
Over the years, the portion of the total NPR budget that comes from government has been decreasing. During the 1970s and early 1980s, the majority of NPR funding came from the federal government. Steps were being taken during the 1980s to completely wean NPR from government support, but the 1983 funding crisis forced the network to make immediate changes. More money to fund the NPR network was raised from listeners, charitable foundations and corporations, and less from the federal government. Major donors are listed on the NPR web site.[13]
National Public Radio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's your original post in all of its ignorance:

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.
 
I listen to a couple of NPR stations to catch BBC broadcasts :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom