• 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

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top Democratic lawmaker predicted on Wednesday that the government will be involved in shaping the future for struggling U.S. media organizations.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, saying quality journalism was essential to U.S. democracy, said eventually government would have to help resolve the problems caused by a failing business model.

Waxman, other U.S. lawmakers and regulators are looking into various options to help a newspaper industry hurt by the shift in advertising revenues to online platforms.

Tweaks to the tax code to allow newspapers to spread losses over a greater number of years, providing a nonprofit structure to allow for public and foundation funding, and changes to antitrust laws are being considered by lawmakers and policymakers.

"Eventually government is going to have to be responsible to help and resolve these issues," Waxman told a conference hosted by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission on the future of journalism.

Free Press, a public interest group, said the search for solutions to the crisis in journalism should be premised on the idea that news-gathering is a public service, not a commodity.

Waxman's "indication that government has a role to play is both bold and soberly sensible," said Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott on the sidelines of the FTC conference.

At the Federal Communications Commission, officials are embarking on a quadrennial review of the state of U.S. media. The study, which is mandated by Congress, seeks to determine whether current rules should be changed to allow for a more vibrant media industry serving a diverse audience.
Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman | Politics | Reuters

Scary, ****ing, ****.
 
Uhm... no commentary?

Do people not see the utter danger implicit in the above suggestions?
 
I do see it. But the government already shapes the media to a great extent. What do you think the FCC is for? ;)

What I really think is that they should realize that with the reality of the internet nothing is or will ever be the same anymore in terms of what information the public has access to. They can't control it. They might as well try to work with it and not try to revive an industry that is already dead. Does anyone even buy newspapers or magazines anymore? The other day I was at JFK and almost bought a copy of Time magazine because there was an article on parenting that looked interesting in it, but then I thought "Why should I buy this? I'll just go online and read it there." And that exactly what I did.
 
Scary, ****ing, ****.

Tweaks to the tax code to allow newspapers to spread losses over a greater number of years, providing a nonprofit structure to allow for public and foundation funding, and changes to antitrust laws are being considered by lawmakers and policymakers.

Maybe if you took the time to read your articles, perhaps you wouldn't blurt out insane comments?

The government shaped modern charities the same way.
 
Maybe if you took the time to read your articles, perhaps you wouldn't blurt out insane comments?

The government shaped modern charities the same way.
Maybe if you weren't such a liberal koolaid drinker, you'd see how Obama is diffferent from the rest. You didn't see these articles when Bush and Clinton were in office. The mouthfoamers that eat up this **** from the Obama administration will doom this nation.
 
The problem is there are "some" american elites of a "particular political persuasion" that do want to "shape" elements of the media they feel isn't always fair to their political outlook.
 
Maybe if you took the time to read your articles, perhaps you wouldn't blurt out insane comments?

The government shaped modern charities the same way.

Are newspapers charities??

Newspapers are a dinosaur media and their slow death is their own fault. But I'm sure that Dems in congress would love to "save" media from itself the same way they "saved" GM and Chrysler.... by putting only "approved" people in charge of the business and appointing czars to oversee operations.

Is that your idea of a free press???
 
This alone scares the **** out of me.

070410_waxman4.jpg
 
:caution:The media in this country used to be the 4th estate and worked to help the people stay informed and to keep Government in line with the Constitution. Today most media have become part of a 5th column that is out to oveturn the Constitution as we have known it.

Socialist/Communist agendas must control ALL not part of media to smash any opposition to insure that propaganda is unimpeded and unopposed.

Howard dean says we will have Both Socialism and Capitalism and the only question is what is the balance of the two.

DNC's Howard Dean Declares: "Instead Of Capitalism OR Socialism, We're Going To HaveBoth" - Home - The Daily Bail

Any true American who is not in favor od the destruction of our Nation knoews these two constructs are incomparable in the long run and the Nation will fail as all who have come before that followed the path of Socialism/Communism have done.

Control to the Extreme Leftists means the must silence any and all opposition. In other words free speech must end. This will lead to, I am sorry to say a Revolution that will not be pretty or nice to see if "WE THE PEOPLE" do not stop the Socialist/ Communist agenda before it moves any closer to our down fall as a Nation.

History has shown us that end free speech is only one step on the road to tyranny and a dictatorship, and they never succeed with death and destruction. To deny this history is to lie to yourself and invite disaster upon your children's, children and yourself.

If you can't see that the Socialism/Communism that was being denied just a few short weeks ago in now being exposed and even bragged about you damn fool, and doomed along with the rest of us to suffer what is to come if you don't stop acting like by God idiots and start acting like Patriotic Americans.

Socialism/Communism lowers everyone's standard of living except for those at the top until the system fails because all incentive to work hard and to more and better is removed when all the advantages are removed through taxes.
 
Last edited:
We supposedly live in an Information Age economy now - where intellectual property is the main fuel for the economy. And yet we all expect to be able to access everything on the internet for free. So we have an economy based on no money? Kind of a contradiction of terms.

Printed media is a technology that is past. Many of these publications also have websites with free access that is easier to get and free - so why pay for a paper version of it? Those publications that require a membership for online access of their content are able to gain some money back for the expense of creating that content.

This is another example of the government trying to save an industry that has been passed by with the advancement of technology, where there are better, cheaper, and faster alternatives. If you really want to get 'green' about it, the electronic media is much more earth friendly than the printed media. So should we not be encouraging business models that adjust to the current and future needs rather than sink money into saving the old?
 
Huh, a democrat trying to save an industry that is possibly going on the endangered list, perhaps even extinction. What a conservative thing to do....:2razz:
 
Huh, a democrat trying to save an industry that is possibly going on the endangered list, perhaps even extinction. What a conservative thing to do....:2razz:

Yeah, I agree.

I have a business manufacturing 11" floppy discs. You think Waxman will help me out?? Business hasn't been too good lately. :lol:
 
Yeah, I agree.

I have a business manufacturing 11" floppy discs. You think Waxman will help me out?? Business hasn't been too good lately. :lol:

You should merge your floppies with the ED pill makers...11" hard discs would be more popular..;)
 
Huh, a democrat trying to save an industry that is possibly going on the endangered list, perhaps even extinction. What a conservative thing to do....:2razz:

What industry are you speaking to? The media? Newpapers? The news itself?
 
Huh, a democrat trying to save an industry that is possibly going on the endangered list, perhaps even extinction. What a conservative thing to do....:2razz:
Nah, we hated the spotted owl. :lol:
 
Uhm... no commentary?

Do people not see the utter danger implicit in the above suggestions?

Not really. He stated it wrong, but all his policies are doing is making sure newspapers survive. He isn't saying certain newspapers with certain viewpoints. All he's saying is that newspapers are the best, most reliable sources of news, and he's absolutely right about that.
 
What industry are you speaking to? The media? Newpapers? The news itself?

The media.....mostly the newspapers. they are archaic. OTOH, new and modern methods of disseminating the news includes talking heads, pundits, etc. are guilty of distortion. Even the major networks have some reporters with bi-assed opinions.
News should not be embellished, but that seems to be the current methodology of getting the news out. Distort it, slant it, edit it, etc. until you can no longer trust any of the methods of dissemination....
 
Not really. He stated it wrong, but all his policies are doing is making sure newspapers survive. He isn't saying certain newspapers with certain viewpoints. All he's saying is that newspapers are the best, most reliable sources of news, and he's absolutely right about that.

Most of them having a very Leftist slant is just a coincidence.
 
The media.....mostly the newspapers. they are archaic. OTOH, new and modern methods of disseminating the news includes talking heads, pundits, etc. are guilty of distortion. Even the major networks have some reporters with bi-assed opinions.
News should not be embellished, but that seems to be the current methodology of getting the news out. Distort it, slant it, edit it, etc. until you can no longer trust any of the methods of dissemination....

Unfortunately, many newspapers are just as biased as the most rabid talking heads are. I know our local newspaper is.
 
Maybe if you took the time to read your articles, perhaps you wouldn't blurt out insane comments?

The government shaped modern charities the same way.

Here’s the difference…

Charities, in general, don’t have a vital role in government.

The media, in general, does.

The Media is supposed to be an outlet for the voice of the people, a barometer of them in a way. It’s supposed to be a check on the politicians, to expose in clear terms to the people what their government is doing and to investigate at times to find out more. They are whistle blowers and they are watch dogs.

Now, they don’t always do this job well and I won’t sit here and say there are not biases evident in the media, on both sides.

What I will say though is that if the government takes action to “save” a portion of the media landscape through the use of governmental means then that makes that portion of the media reliant on the government for its sustained growth and possibly existence. As such it brings up questions of potential bias and negligence when it comes to covering governmental things, and also breeds questions of what sort of pressure could politico’s put on that portion of the media to put forth the propaganda they wish.

Its far different then trying to compare it to charities.
 
Here’s the difference…

Charities, in general, don’t have a vital role in government.

The media, in general, does.

The Media is supposed to be an outlet for the voice of the people, a barometer of them in a way. It’s supposed to be a check on the politicians, to expose in clear terms to the people what their government is doing and to investigate at times to find out more. They are whistle blowers and they are watch dogs.

Now, they don’t always do this job well and I won’t sit here and say there are not biases evident in the media, on both sides.

What I will say though is that if the government takes action to “save” a portion of the media landscape through the use of governmental means then that makes that portion of the media reliant on the government for its sustained growth and possibly existence. As such it brings up questions of potential bias and negligence when it comes to covering governmental things, and also breeds questions of what sort of pressure could politico’s put on that portion of the media to put forth the propaganda they wish.

Its far different then trying to compare it to charities.

Absolutely, just look at how politics has, apparently, corrupted science in the global warming debate.
 
Back
Top Bottom