All the President's Newsmen

The stupidity of getting government involved in the journalism business

Michael C. Moynihan | March 23, 2009

In her 2007 book The End of America, Naomi Wolf warned readers that our democracy was cracking up, that America was hurdling toward a “fascist” future. The Nation’s John Nichols singled-out Wolf’s slim treatise as the “best political book of 2007,” arguing that The End of America illustrated convincingly the “parallels between steps taken by the current administration and moves made by the 20th century's most notorious dictators.” Since the election of Barack Obama, Wolf has wisely avoided explaining why these prophesies of a star-spangled National Socialism never panned out. But while Nichols might no longer look to the White House and see the Reichskanzlei, he has nevertheless identified a very different, but no less serious, threat to America’s democratic institutions.

In a story for The Nation, co-written with University of Illinois professor Robert McChesney, Nichols frets that American journalism is “collapsing," that it's an institution that “is all but extinguished.” That various regional newspapers have shut their doors—while others are teetering on the edge of extinction—amounts to “a crisis that could leave a dramatically diminished version of democracy in its wake.” It is the press corps, Nichols and McChesney argue, that “sustain” this country’s “democratic infrastructure.”

If such breathless declamations strike the reader as unnecessarily hyperbolic, it is worth considering that the authors too once held America’s mainstream media in low esteem. In 2005, Nichols and McChesney authored a book called Tragedy and Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy, featuring a foreword by the actor and political activist Tim Robbins. It is odd, then, that the very media that once acted as a destroyer of democracy is now judged to be vital to the survival of democracy.

According to Nichols and McChesney, newspapers, talk radio, and cable news channels have abrogated their journalistic responsibilities in order to—surprise!—satisfy their corporate paymasters. They have ignored the type of stories that run in The Nation in the hopes of satiating the plebian news consumer’s desire to study the minutiae of “the Octomom’s” daily schedule. It is imperative, Nichols and McChesney write, that the Fourth Estate again returns to “the Murrow and Cronkite eras,” when news choice was limited and a gentleman’s agreement (don’t talk about the president’s relationship with the Mafia bosses’ girl; don’t ask about vote rigging in Chicago and West Virginia) governed the media’s relationship with the Kennedy White House.

Before establishing that the government should involve itself in the preservation of unprofitable newspapers, Nichols and McChesney make it clear that they think “there are still tremendous journalists doing outstanding work, but they battle a system increasingly pushing in the opposite direction. (That is why some of the most powerful statements about our current circumstances come in the form of books, like Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine; or documentaries, like Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine).” And later, in case one gets the impression that they have little appreciation for the enormous number of high-quality journalistic ventures online, they offer this further clarification: “Don't get us wrong. We are enthusiastic about many of the efforts to promote original journalism online, such as ProPublica, Talking Points Memo and the Huffington Post.” Do you get it now? It isn’t accuracy that so concerns these saviors of American democracy—Naomi Klein’s book and Michael Moore’s film have been repeatedly debunked in the pages of Reason, incidentally—it is ideology.

Nor do they consider that while Huffington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and Politico boom, the ossified regional newspapers are seeing their influence wane because, in most cases, they simply put out a bad product. For instance, Nichols and McChesney lament that the economic problems of The San Francisco Chronicle—a national emergency that has prompted the intervention of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)—would “leav[e] a major city without a major daily newspaper.” Indeed it would, though this fails to address a more serious problem: The Chronicle isn’t a very good newspaper. In 2000, San Francisco-based writer Joan Walsh wondered in Salon why “this literate city, with its high concentration of overeducated book lovers and its new media savants, [is] saddled with the most mediocre daily journalism in the country.”

The solution to all of this is, Nichols and McChesney argue, is to “recognize and embrace the necessity of government intervention” along the European model, where, in many countries, newspapers are partially subsidized by the state. (Incidentally, the latest edition of The Nation urges its readers to donate money to the failing Italian communist newspaper Il Manifesto, whose current issue features a review of Mickey Rourke’s The Wrestler which slips in a denunciation of Milton Friedman in the very first sentence.)

But despite massive spending on print media in France, for example, the newspaper industry is still flailing. French president Nicolas Sarkozy recently announced a plan to provide a billion Euros (in addition to existing subsidies) to shore up struggling dailies, even suggesting that the government finance free newspaper subscriptions for students. In Sweden, presstöd (press support) has created a series of atrophied institutions, resistant to change, and staffed by lethargic journalists that are nearly impossible to fire. A recent report from the Swedish Competition Authority argued that government intervention into the newspaper business has had the unintended consequence of preventing competition: "Press support has hardly fulfilled its original intent of preserving a large range of different daily newspapers in local markets…The rules governing support can complicate the establishment of new newspapers and have had a preservative effect on the newspaper market.”

To the self-important journalists who believe themselves a bulwark against impending tyranny, such an arrangement suits them just fine. But what would Nichols and McChesney, both of whom have written scathing denunciations of the media’s behavior in the run up to the Iraq War, have said if the very same journalists wrote the very same stories in 2002 but were reliant upon the Bush administration for their survival?

The more important point, though, is that if failing newspapers are propped up by Washington—in the name of democracy, of course—what mechanism would force them to innovate or to address the deep institutional problems of a declining industry? Such interventions could potentially ensure survival, albeit temporary, of failing media outlets, but it is ludicrous to assume that a government bailout would reverse a steep decline in readership. Short of a Sarkozy-like plan to force newspaper subscriptions upon those indolent, insolent, and ill-educated youths of Denver, a Washington stake in the Rocky Mountain News would be an investment only Jim Cramer could love.

Michael C. Moynihan is a senior editor of Reason magazine.

Comments

TofuSushi|3.23.09 @ 3:03PM|#

If we had only come to the rescue of other industries like we should here, we would still have candle makers on every corner.

|3.23.09 @ 3:06PM|#

This is an emergency, they say, because it's the media that "sustains" this country's "democratic infrastructure."

It is not only a dubious argument, it is a non sequitur!

Orange Line Special|3.23.09 @ 3:13PM|#

The main problem with newspapers and the MSM in general is that they're populated by YuppieScum who studied "journalism" in college and then immediately went to work for a "news" source. They have little life experience and even more importantly they have the wrong personality type. None of them that I can see are of the "engineer" type: this is what we want and this is how we're going to do it and this is what we're going to do if things go wrong.

Because they're of the wrong type and because they're YuppieScum, pols can continue to present half-baked schemes and all they'll do is nod and write it down rather than saying, "but, that makes no sense".

|3.23.09 @ 3:14PM|#

Government involvement in journalism seems anathema to Americans. But why is it that the best institutions to get information are the BBC, NPR, and PBS?

Warty |3.23.09 @ 3:16PM|#

But why is it that the best institutions to get information are the BBC, NPR, and PBS?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

*deep breath*


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!

|3.23.09 @ 3:17PM|#

But why is it that the best institutions to get information are the BBC, NPR, and PBS?

Depends on what you call "information". I have found BBC to be the worst so far for being terribly uncritical of the government. NPR is just a tad better, but still, it hears almost like listening to Pravda. I don't even watch PBS because their programming conflicts with Lost and Battlestar Galactica (shame on them).

|3.23.09 @ 3:21PM|#

Most of the MSM is populated by 'Cultural Marxists' who's only agenda is to prepare the way for revolution. They discovered that 'journalism' is a wonderful occupation for political activists who don't want to go to the trouble of getting elected. They can 'see' whatever facts and opinion they want. They are not in a court of law - they don't have to report the whole truth about anything - so we get a tissue of half truths. And it's all perfectly legitimate journalism i.e. they report what facts and opinions they want us to know accurately.

|3.23.09 @ 3:23PM|#

Tony is either hilariously naive or the best liberal spoof troll ever. I really can't tell which.

|3.23.09 @ 3:25PM|#

Related news:
A bunch of Advance newspapers in Michigan announced a shift from daily distribution this morning. The Ann Arbor News is ceasing publication in July, when its resources and some staff will be transferred to an online-only news provider. The local dailies in industrial towns Flint, Bay City and Saginaw are dropping down to Tuesday/Friday/Sunday publication, and the handful of associated papers in West Michigan are consolidating operations but will continue to publish daily due to that area's stronger economy.

Of course, shortly after this announcement, the state was mired in violent anarchy amid fears of a media blackout. As far as I can ascertain in this brave new world, the "democratic infrastructure" is largely intact.

|3.23.09 @ 3:25PM|#

I hear Al Gore invented this cool new thing. He calls it the Inter-somethingorother. I hear you can get all kinds of news there without actually EVER having to read a newspaper.

jester|3.23.09 @ 3:27PM|#

Only the best and brightest get their information from BBC, NPR and PBS. The vast ignorant masses wouldn't even miss them if they disappeared. All the government involvement in the world can't save the news from E! and People.

Tony, it would be better to put a heavy tax on each issue of junk journalism to encourage higher readership of the 'good' sources.

The rest of us: we want our MTV!

|3.23.09 @ 3:29PM|#

I am perfectly capable of parsing facts on my own, but I'm a geek. I just happen to note that NPR, BBC, and PBS have a much greater association with facts than any other broadcasts in the American market.

But if you're a dittohead or a FOX devotee you're not so concerned with facts anyway, are you?

|3.23.09 @ 3:31PM|#

Tofu,
If we had only come to the rescue of other industries like we should here, we would still have candle makers on every corner.

Are you being ironic? Just wanted to be sure, because if you are, what you wrote is pure genius.

|3.23.09 @ 3:32PM|#

You're right Tony, because anyone that disagrees with you just HAS to be an idiot, right? Sounds like we need you in charge if you've got it all figured out.

JiggleTits|3.23.09 @ 3:33PM|#

"Tony is either hilariously naive or the best liberal spoof troll ever. I really can't tell which."

Well he certainly leaves curd boy in a pile of shit.

|3.23.09 @ 3:34PM|#

American Journalism is failing because American journalists are lazy ass bums and the public is tired of their shoddy product.

Press releases are very useful, but should a starting point for journalism, not the end product. I've seen press releases printed word-for-word with the reporter's byline. This used to be common just in the trade journals, now it's standard practice for all print media.

Stop focusing on getting a "gotcha" story, and start focusing on getting the information. Your job isn't to confront and embarrass the president, it's to uncover the news.

Zeb|3.23.09 @ 3:34PM|#

BBC. NPR. PBS all have their problems and shortcomings, but can anyone really name a better broadcast news source?

I listen to NPR a lot, and while sometimes I want to throttle the person I hear speaking (usually in a story about guns or economics) I find they are still a whole lot better than any commercial news outlet I see out there.

Since I don't have cable/satellite TV, I suppose I could just be biased toward public broadcasting because of the unmitigated awfulness of commercial over-the-air TV lately.

Jay Leno|3.23.09 @ 3:36PM|#

"Your job isn't to confront and embarrass the president, it's to uncover the news."

He's right, you know.

EJM|3.23.09 @ 3:38PM|#

I plugged a new NYT feature on GlobalPost in an earlier thread (concerning, ironically enough, the Advance/Booth announcements that Lola refers to above); however, this brief section may be more applicable here...

[Philip] Balboni, who created the New England Cable News network, said he was a passionate defender of for-profit journalism. "I believe deep in my heart and soul that the discipline of the marketplace makes for a stronger organization," he said. "It gives you a far greater chance to be a self-sustaining enterprise, without having to turn to government or foundations," which can be mercurial, he said.

Long before the debate about whether newspapers and magazines should be charging for Web content, Mr. Balboni envisioned having consumers pay for at least a part of GlobalPost, he said. It was a lesson he learned after years in the cable TV business, which is supported by subscribers as well as ads. Having created a hybrid model, he said, "now we have to prove it in the marketplace."

jester|3.23.09 @ 3:39PM|#

The spin to fact ratio (SF ratio) is what determines entertainment value of news shows. The public (on the Left and Right) like entertaining news as the ratings show.

It is why folks like Chris Matthews, Glen Beck, Anderson Cooper, Bill O'Reilly are so loved and reviled by different segments of the population.

|3.23.09 @ 3:39PM|#

Tony,
I just happen to note that NPR, BBC, and PBS have a much greater association with facts than any other broadcasts in the American market.

It happens that you simply agree with what they inform, that's all. And that is your choice. Just because you find their product acceptable does not mean ipso facto that government-controlled media is somehow better than other sources.

Mister Tax Slave|3.23.09 @ 3:45PM|#

In defense of Tony, I would submit that the best news program on television is The News Hour With Jim Lehrer.

I have been a daily watcher for nearly 30 years.

BTW Moyers and his only begotten son Brancaccio suck the juices from the same Liberal dog cock.

jester|3.23.09 @ 3:45PM|#

It is print newspapers that are failing. The government prints an amazing news source called The Congressional Record. Any guesses about its readership? Ever see the guy sitting next to you reading it?

TofuSushi|3.23.09 @ 3:46PM|#

Most of the MSM is populated by 'Cultural Marxists' who's only agenda is to prepare the way for revolution.

You say that as if it is a bad thing.

Orange Line Special|3.23.09 @ 3:49PM|#

The "public" broadcasting in the U.S. is a joke. For real news reporting, one must simply turn to the European press.

TofuSushi|3.23.09 @ 3:50PM|#

OLS,

You are brilliant.

|3.23.09 @ 3:53PM|#

For real news reporting, one must simply turn to the European press.

No need - you can look at more factual reporting by watching Univision or Galavision - just the anchorwomen makes it worthwhile, better than looking at ugly people on BBC or PBS.

|3.23.09 @ 4:02PM|#

OLS:

I thought your first post was right on. However, I actually find the European Press to be just as medicre as ours and almost always finds a way to be anti-American.

Taktix®|3.23.09 @ 4:06PM|#

It is print newspapers that are failing. The government prints an amazing news source called The Congressional Record. Any guesses about its readership? Ever see the guy sitting next to you reading it?

But... but... they have CSPAN!

(Sadly, I was watching Neil DeGrasse Tyson on CSPAN Book TV last night. CSPAN still sucks, but Tyson is a pimp. Rock star physicists are teh awesome!)

Orange Line Special|3.23.09 @ 4:17PM|#

My first comment was serious. The second was satire.

Boudreaux|3.23.09 @ 4:38PM|#

The best reporting comes from the Statesman:

PETA's "Chicken Empathy Museum" doesn't take off in Louisiana - surprise!

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/03/22/0322kelso.html

|3.23.09 @ 4:39PM|#

You're right Tony, because anyone that disagrees with you just HAS to be an idiot, right?

It happens that you simply agree with what they inform, that's all.

Hm, no. I just believe there are such things as facts. But carry on with your relativism and nihilism if it suits you.

Paul|3.23.09 @ 5:02PM|#

In 2005, Nichols and McChesney authored a book called Tragedy and Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy

although I did read the whole article, I almost felt like stopping after this factoid. Because, afterall, that pretty much sums up Nichols and McChesney. Which is it, fellers? Does it destroy it, or preserve it?

JB|3.23.09 @ 5:03PM|#

The New York Times is pretty much a puppet for the Special Olympics Presidency anyways.

They sure act like they are bought and paid for.

|3.23.09 @ 5:06PM|#

Tony is either hilariously naive or the best liberal spoof troll ever.

I'm still struggling to decide, myself.

Your job isn't to confront and embarrass the president,

Um, Brandybuck, I think they all got that memo on January 20.

Chad|3.23.09 @ 5:08PM|#

Somehow, we have to get to a micro-payment system on the internet. The lack of a viable method for me to pay reason one cent for reading this article is what is underlying this problem...and yes, this is a problem.

Much of the quality news I read on the internet, for free, comes from newspapers or magazines that are threatened with extinction. I have no way of rewarding them for what they give me that is in any way proportional to what they give me each month, as it is nickles and dimes each. I would gladly welcome a system that charged each internet consumer a flat monthly fee ($10-$15) that was allocated among the sites they visited. Of course, the libertarians around here would probably object, because this would almost certainly require some sort of participation by government. I am sure you would rather have the whole thing come crashing down except for octamom blogs than for the government to do anything, anywhere, anytime.

Paul|3.23.09 @ 5:10PM|#

I am perfectly capable of parsing facts on my own, but I'm a geek. I just happen to note that NPR, BBC, and PBS have a much greater association with facts than any other broadcasts in the American market.

But if you're a dittohead or a FOX devotee you're not so concerned with facts anyway, are you?

Ahh, the mind of the liberal. You're either a well informed consumer of NPR or PBS, or you watch Fox and listen to Limbaugh.

Paul|3.23.09 @ 5:18PM|#

Of course, the libertarians around here would probably object, because this would almost certainly require some sort of participation by government.

Why?

Mister Tax Slave|3.23.09 @ 5:28PM|#

"Ahh, the mind of the liberal. You're either a well informed consumer of NPR or PBS, or you watch Fox and listen to Limbaugh."

Look, bash PBS all you want but at least add the disclamer that PBS's The News Hour is fact-based and relatively balanced.

ChrisO|3.23.09 @ 5:29PM|#

The future of print journalism (apart from those papers that will receive govt. subsidies and turn into Pravda) is in a smaller, more localized format. Local news is the one area where newspapers provide the only effective coverage, since it takes real resources to cover city hall, the sports teams and the police blotter on a daily basis.

As to localization, I've seen comments in various fora by people who subscribe to papers only for the sports section--they could care less about all of the political stuff. And coverage of national and international affairs can be had in other ways.

If you subtracted out the Washington bureaus, hiring of reporters with the fancy Ivy League pedigrees, and use of wire services, I'll bet you could probably run a small daily focused almost entirely on local coverage and make a profit from advertising and subscriptions.

|3.23.09 @ 5:31PM|#

Ahh, the mind of the liberal. You're either a well informed consumer of NPR or PBS, or you watch Fox and listen to Limbaugh.

All I know is that conservatives all start using the same talking points at the same time. They have to be getting them from somewhere, because it's not possible for all of them to be pulling the same lies from their different asses.

Mister Tax Slave|3.23.09 @ 5:38PM|#

"If you subtracted out the Washington bureaus, hiring of reporters with the fancy Ivy League pedigrees, and use of wire services, I'll bet you could probably run a small daily focused almost entirely on local coverage and make a profit from advertising and subscriptions."

These folks have been doing this successfully for decades:

http://www.camdenews.org/

|3.23.09 @ 5:54PM|#

Is it just me, or did Chad just propose that Our Masters impose a tax on internet page-views?

|3.23.09 @ 6:01PM|#

All I know is that conservatives all start using the same talking points at the same time.

And, leftists don't . . . right?

Because if I had a penny for EVERY time I hear some yahoo say that the reason for the downturn was because of "deregulation" . . . I would be a very rich man due to copper commodity prices.

|3.23.09 @ 6:07PM|#

Tony,
Hm, no. I just believe there are such things as facts. But carry on with your relativism and nihilism if it suits you.

What does "nihilism" have to do with anything? But, nevertheless . . . I don't think you like the BBC, NPR or PBS because of your love for facts - you mentioned them as a form of tit-for-tat. I do get facts perusing through the Internet, especially on the economy, finance, the wars, the violations of rights, et cetera. I do find all the alternatives refreshing. Instead, you seem to argue that government-funded news outlets are better than private outlets, and you only have your opinion as proof. That's not good enough.

Kolohe|3.23.09 @ 6:28PM|#

CSPAN still sucks,

Serious question. Why do you say this? They are practically just a transcription service and have very little editorial direction at all.

Now, I agree that morning journal callers rival you-tube commenters, but that's a statement about the public, not the network.

Kolohe|3.23.09 @ 6:31PM|#

And I like Dr Tyson as well, but the overwhelming trend - to which I don't have enough info to know if he's an exception - is that famous scientists are better at being famous than being scientists.

|3.23.09 @ 6:43PM|#

The solution to all of this is, Nichols and McChesney argue, is to "recognize and embrace the necessity of government intervention" along the European model, where, in many countries, newspapers are partially subsidized by the state.

European newspapers are propagandists for the socialist state. Be assured that if you disagree with the government in any particular, you will be tarred with the label "extreme right wing", which everybody knows is code for "people you should and must ignore". No matter the merits of your arguments, you will be called racist, sexist, or any other -ist that serves to inform the public that your views are beyond the pale of civilized (i.e. socialist/progressive) discourse, again proving you are somebody that must be ignored.

Suki|3.23.09 @ 8:34PM|#

Most of the MSM is populated by 'Cultural Marxists' who's only agenda is to prepare the way for revolution. They discovered that 'journalism' is a wonderful occupation for political activists who don't want to go to the trouble of getting elected. They can 'see' whatever facts and opinion they want. They are not in a court of law - they don't have to report the whole truth about anything - so we get a tissue of half truths. And it's all perfectly legitimate journalism i.e. they report what facts and opinions they want us to know accurately.

They were, er, annoying in Chemistry classes, before they took something they could understand. Sadly, they seemed to think that attending a Chemestry class gave them license to write about anything related to any element, molecule or chemical reaction with 'authority'.

|3.23.09 @ 9:05PM|#

It should be pointed out that much of PBS and NPR's programming is underwritten by corporate sponsors and or foundations that charge local stations for their programming. It's not really a direct government subsidy. Maybe such a model can work for some national newspapers in the future. But getting direct gov't handouts is not going to make people newspaper who already are not reading them. If anything it will make even more skeptical.

Obviously journalism, like all things is heading towards a digital future. It save a lot of trees in the process. What's not clear yet it what replaces the traditional newspaper within the new technology. Hopefully companies, foundations, whatever, can pay the costs and advertisers be willing to advertise with these new media. Otherwise there will be no invetsigative or even day-to-day reporting of many stories that go on around the country. And you bloggers will be a lot poorer for it. Remember that.

Pluto|3.23.09 @ 9:42PM|#

I was a stranger and Neil deGrasse Tyson took me not in; I was a planet and Neil deGrasse Tyson called me a dwarf; I was eccentric and Neil deGrasse Tyson talked not of by hydrostatic equilibrium...

MJ|3.23.09 @ 10:18PM|#

"This is an emergency, they say, because it's the media that "sustains" this country's "democratic infrastructure." "

Media that are dependent on government support to sustain it cannot support the "democratic infrastructure". That role, by necessity, requires biting that hand that would be feeding it. It would be a sham and worse than nothing, better to let the newspapers die than to exist undead on the government dole.

Paul|3.24.09 @ 1:20AM|#

Oh, by the way, it's not 'NPR' anymore, it's the 'NPR/Paul Krugman Newshour'.

Which reminds me, guess who was (again) a guest on NPR tonight?

Guess... dare ya.

Paul|3.24.09 @ 1:22AM|#

Government involvement in journalism seems anathema to Americans. But why is it that the best institutions to get information are the BBC, NPR, and PBS?

Had to go back to this one, and got to thinking, don't liberals regularly deny that NPR or PBS are state news outlets? So I guess we're all back in agreement again, NPR and PBS are the government bullhorns?

I sure have an opinion on that matter, and I get pretty much all of my news from NPR.

|3.24.09 @ 1:29AM|#

Tony,
Remember how NPR was doing the hard sell for the Iraq war in 2002-2003? what do you think of the push they made for the Bush/Obama bailout package?

let me guess, you think the push for a global fiat currency run by central bankers who can't be audited by congress is either a conspiracy theory or a good idea. am I right?

|3.24.09 @ 1:31AM|#

The internet is the biggest threat to this country. We need to protect MSM.

Tim|3.24.09 @ 2:13AM|#

It's ridiculous for liberals to argue that corporate funding biases the media while government funding does not. The fourth estate is incredibly important to democracy but what is to stop the government from withdrawing financial support from those news sources it doesn't like. Some have already pressured Congress to use their influence to prevent companies receiving bailout funds from lobbying against card check.

As for from where conservatives get their "talking points" besides Fox and Limbaugh; most conservatives along with all libertarians believe in capitalism so there is it surprising that they all are coming out against big government programs proposed by the current administration and congress? A previous poster got it just right, the most narrow minded people I have ever encountered on online forums are liberals. Despite the fact that I am libertarian and agree with them on many social issues the fact that I refuse to blame Bush for every bad thing that happened(though he did cause a good few, just not the economy the fed and congress did that) and advocate for capitalism and limited government I get bashed as someone whose only source of news is Limbaugh or Fox.

And as another poster already suggested a system of micro finance for online news sources is what is needed, and also the idea of relying on these sources for national news while local papers survive by covering primarily local news only is another great idea. With the internet and cable channels there is already an overabundance of national news so why do the local sources bother to spend much on covering it?

And finally the real problem I see is less one of liberal/conservative bias but one of just stupidity and people following octomom and Natalee Holloway rather than the latest actions of the fed. There is little the government can do on that, taxing it sounds interesting at first but who wants the state deciding what news in trash and what isn't; its another recipe for abuse of power.

Suki|3.24.09 @ 6:52AM|#

Tim,

I think I know what you mean. My feminist friends had the same sort of reaction when they discovered I listen to Tammy Bruce sometimes.

All of a sudden I have become a zombie of the right (or something like that). The funniest part, if there even is a funny part, is when I am disagreeing with Tammy I am accused of using her "talking points".

|3.24.09 @ 11:26AM|#

So I guess we're all back in agreement again, NPR and PBS are the government bullhorns?

I didn't realize liberals argued that these stations weren't at least partly subsidized by the government.

I don't know the answer to this issue, I just felt like noting where the best news comes from. And it's not from sources concerned primarily with ad revenue.

|3.24.09 @ 2:19PM|#

I'd argue that the news at Reason and LewRockwell.com is much better than the news at NPR.

I don't know if NPR is more concerned about their sponsors or just plain ole gubmint dsucking, but they did everything they could to justify the Iraq war and the recent splurge of bailouts. This type of activity makes them worse than Foxnews....as everyone expects Foxnews to be pretty ridiculous...all the Obamatards actually believe NPR's crap don't stink.

|3.24.09 @ 2:21PM|#

Tony,
Are you in favor of the obama youth corps not having free speach rights?

HR1388 GIVE
'SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

'(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

'(1) Attempting to influence legislation.
'(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
'(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.
'(4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements.
'(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office.
'(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.

|3.24.09 @ 4:52PM|#

But what would Nichols and McChesney, both of whom have written scathing denunciations of the media's behavior in the run up to the Iraq War, have said if the very same journalists wrote the very same stories in 2002 but were reliant upon the Bush administration for their survival?

I suspect they're not worried about that, and probably with good reason. They're probably pretty confident that a government-supported press corps would be as consistently, institutionally left-leaning as NPR (or the BBC), and this would remain the case regardless of which party happened to be in power.