Here’s the difference…
Charities, in general, don’t have a vital role in government.
Neither do a lot of things that we encourage or discourage with the tax law. Does that mean we haven't been essentially engaging in social engineering with the tax law for decades if not centuries, if not millennia. People getting their panties in a bunch about this because a
democrat said it are pretty much ignoring that this kind of stuff has been occurring well before Europeans first step foot in the New World. Some are blind to that fact.
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.
It is? I thought the media in a capitalist society was all about profit. Granted, that may be why we have such an awful media, but what you describe doesn't seem to gel with how media functions in our economy.
Furthermore, the problem with the media has far more to do with their exceptionally near sighted business plans. Getting the government involved in their tax structures really won't change this at all.
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.
But that has always been the case. The media right now is dependent upon the government for sustained growth and existence. Without the government providing and enforcing the legal structure in which newspapers function, there would not be a newspaper industry. Is the Red Cross dependent upon the government to function? Yes. Was it dependent upon the government before it acquired a 501(c)(3) statue? Yes. People act like changing the tax code suddenly makes industries now dependent on the government. All capitalistic industries are reliant upon the government to maintain the framework in which they operate for sustained growth.
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.
If the measures the government takes goes as far as direct bailouts and nationalization, yes you have a point there. But if you read the actual documentation provided in the link, that is certainly not the case. Hence my first post to Mr. V. Modifying the tax law is hardly what the partisans here claim it is. We change the tax law every single year. 10 years ago the media was dependent upon the government in allowing expense deductions for uniquely media expenses. If it did not get those, they would be dead. As long as the government sticks to what was stated, this really changes nothing fundamental.
Its far different then trying to compare it to charities.
Not in the context of what was actually stated in the link provided.
See above.
The notion that increased timetable of amortization of losses equates to what you claim it does is an absolutely failure to understand the tax law.