« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama – I think I could use a newspaper industry

No, I don't see a conflict of interest either.

By: E Pluribus Unum (Diary)  |  September 20th, 2009 at 07:45 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The cure for sinking poll numbers – more lollipops!
.
And my very own newspapers!

If you get your news primarily from the typical newspapers and alphabet-soup TV networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, et al) then:

  • Van Jones must be some kind of NBA center or NFL lineman, just like Johnny Malibu, Truck Johnson, or Tractor Traylor.
  • The words ACORN, hidden cameras, underage prostitution, and tax cheating are not especially related to each other
  • Republicans are racists because they oppose health care for poor people.
  • People who protest are racists.
  • But that didn’t become true until this January.
  • Democrats could get more done if those 40 Senators and 178 House Republicans would quit blocking everything.
  • You hear the word teabagger in your dreams, and are unaware of a site called urbandictionary.com
  • Honduras overthrew their president in a coup, but Obama is standing up to them.
  • Hugo Chavez is misunderstood.
  • All the world’s thugs and dictators are now learning to appreciate how warm and fuzzy America is, and at any moment are about to break into Kum-Ba-Ya and will probably wish us Happy Winter Observance around mid-late December.
  • America sucks, but Obama is changing that by apologizing to everybody, and fixing all the broken stuff like the banking industry, the auto industry, the health industry…and anything else he can get his hands on.

And because you are so well-informed, the government would like to make it so you are always that well-informed.

Conservatives have long known that the Democrats would love an excuse to subsidize the collapsing left-partisan newspaper industry. Readership has been dropping steadily for years, thanks to a relentlessly bitter left-wing news slant and the growing availability of alternate news sources. I realize the ‘falling ad revenue due to everything moving to the web’ argument gets used alot, but I tell you, I don’t see the Washington Examiner, New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal yipping about declining revenues.

If you get my drift.

One of the remarkable things about this collapse of the bird-cage-lining industry is that in spite of readership vaporizing, and in spite of some pretty substantial evidence that their leftist political pitch is at least a factor, they refuse to moderate their tone. The decline in the evening news viewers on ABC, NBC, and CBS over a 10-year span is AWESOME BABY rather drastic, and the corresponding numbers at FoxNews has risen to the point where they border on competitive with the broadcast networks.

Ideology may not be the whole reason but it is undeniably a part of it. Whether you think the Examiner and FoxNews are right-biased or now, it is a FACT that conservative viewers and readers can no longer tolerate the stench issuing from the NY Times, WaPo, CBS, and friends.

So the industry will not change in order to be profitable. And now Democrats are proposing to “subsidize” — aka take over — the industry, and Obama has expressed that he’s “open” to it. That is code for “it was his ideal”. We already have Government Banking and Government Motors. Now we can have the Government Press.

I bet that will result in a better product and more fair political representation.
.
Especially during election season.

Tags: , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Xasteius

    Newspapers back then were basically propaganda rags that spewed scandalous libel to make the conspiracy theorists of today look credible. People such as Benjamin Franklin Bache and James Callender made their careers by destroying the reputation of others (Washington, Adams, Hamilton).

    • Next93

      I don’t mind someone who’s openly partisan, at least people have a chance to “raise sheilds”.

      What’s truly annoying is the calm dulcet-voiced newsreader pretending to be completely impartial while reading off the latests leftist spin and completly burying any story that might conflict with the narrative.

      As far as I’m concerned, I’d much rather have a return to honest and up-front yellow journalism than the Couric-clones we have out there right now.

  • IJB

    So, *GO FOR IT*, Obama and Dems.
    Just, *Go for it*!

    I dare you.
    I *double* dare you.

    Go ahead – Make my day…

    • Vannek

      Are you Rupert Murdoch, cause I can see Fox News’s rating exploding if this happens and Rupert rolling in his coins like Uncle Scooge McDuck.

  • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim
    • Right_Again

      No up until this proposal newspapers and the networks have had to rely on their own money. Obama is open to allowing them to have your money too.

      Yes, they already spew his talking points, but he doesn’t want them to go bankrupt doing it. He’s willing to allow the taxpayers to help him help them push his policies.

      • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim

        Guess I should have added /sarc between press and nt :) I call this subscribing by taxation, and you don’t even have to bother picking one up at the newstand or taking home delivery. If anything, they’ll just spew even more lib talking points and give more glowing reviews to the ObamAgenda.

        If that’s possible.

        • Right_Again

          nt

          • SilverhairedSurfer

            Obonga will use anything and anyone if it serves his stinking rotten egg agenda. By, ‘use’, I mean ride hard and put up wet. One thing about Obonga though, you can always tell that he is sincere because he always kisses you and tells you how much he loves you before he bends you over the sawbuck for a royal screwing.

            He is a serial stalker, and pathological liar. Obonga will grab as much power as his dirty little hands can hold, then send in the rest of his pack to tidy up.

            The French revolution is coming again and then it’s, “Off with their heads.”

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            Don’t repeat any of them in your future comments.

            And don’t play cute about it, either.

  • Achance

    The saying was, “In the Truth there is no News and in the News there is no Truth.” We’re about there. We only have to get to, “They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work” and we’ll have the perfect socialist workers’ paradise.

    • gator_hoo

      nt

      • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

        I’ve been calling the oldestream, lamestream, government, fringe media the PRAVDA MEDIA for several months now. This change would just make official what has been ISVESTIA for years already.

  • ss396

    We’ve got all those folks who get up on their hind legs about any governmental or quasi-governmental organization even mentioning religion. Since freedom of the press is guaranteed in that same First Amendment, I expect that they will all rise up in equally vigorous protest at this concept.

    Won’t they?

    Yep.

    Any day now.

  • bs

    (Oh, sorry, that was just me, kicking the snark-o-matic. It seems to be stuck on overdrive)

    :-)

    (Nice job, bro)

    • E Pluribus Unum

      If you take them very seriously, you’ll just go suicidal.

  • Achance

    to stop publishing the “Public Notices” in the dead tree rag and go online with them. Also, you can threaten to stop advertising government jobs in a paper; they screech like stepped on cats over that too.

    No Red State governor should allow the public notices to be published in an unfriendly paper or advertise any government jobs in one. When you have them by the wallet, their hearts and minds follow.

    • E Pluribus Unum

      Is what I live for.

    • JoeG

      Notices are online and posted at the district office. Jobs are posted online plus placed in Monster.

      Why should they pay for either? In this case, it’s just a matter of not wasting the money rather than any agenda.

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

    because all those TV appearances didn’t get him an Emmy.

  • DONTTREADONME
  • mbecker908

    and CBS gets reviewed and slashed by the compensation czar? Oh Pinch? Katy? Heh.

  • NeoKong

    All the MSM big shots are already rich.
    They are pushing Obama’s agenda.
    They will never live the lives they wish to impose upon us.
    Little tiny electric cars for us while they have limousines.
    Little tiny houses for us while they live in mansions.
    Little tiny salaries for us while they are all filthy rich.
    Crappy public schools for our kids while they send theirs to private school.
    Canada style healthcare for us while they have their own private doctors.
    We all reduce our carbon foot print while they all travel in private jets.

    If they can just prop up Obama long enough for all of that to happen then to them it will all be worth it.
    They are agenda driven.

    • Long Don Johnson

      I’m gonna steal some of it for a little tiny FB rant…thanks

      • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

        Folks, if you don’t get the reference – don’t worry, not important – He will and I’m just messing with him… but if you’re curious see: Arrrrrr (Open Thread)

        /rib-poking

        Yes, really it was/is a good list. Too bad we can’t get people printing it out and standing by ALL newspaper stands handing it out to folks that purchase a newspaper. We need a form of ACORN darn it!!!

        • Long Don Johnson

          continue my new career as a pirate indefinitely…benefits are decent

          wenches, rum, cool eye patch…

          Barack’s warships of socialism need to be boarded and possibly scuttled, Obooty needs to be plundered (after I finish the dishes, of course)

  • saterp

    So, the press would be moving from amateur to professional weasel status, then?

  • seandparnell

    The proposal isn’t really as bad as is made out. The government wouldn’t control what’s printed after conversion to nonprofit status than they do now.

    There are numerous outlets that operate as non-profits, the National Review comes to mind. Allowing newspapers to convert their status – well, they’ve got to do something with what’s left of the newspaper industry after it clears bankruptcy court. Why not a nonprofit?

    That said, I’m not sure what this is supposed to accomplish – it’s not like what’s killing the newspaper industry is the crushing burden of taxes on their profits.

    Sean Parnell
    President
    Center for Competitive Politics
    http://www.campaignfreedom.org

    • JoeG

      That’s all I have to say about your comment.

      It’s entirely delusional to believe those that control who the money goes to will have no influence upon the content.

      Just the selection of those who are going to receive the money will be the perfect place to exercise content control. Fawn over the administration and receive plenty of money. Be critical and… ops, those that are critical don’t need money and are doing fine.

    • E Pluribus Unum

      What is objectionable is on two fronts. First, my tax dollars paying so those a**holes can slander America on my dime, and second, the government subsidizing them, therefore inevitable exerting control.

      • seandparnell

        I’m assuming we’re talking about the proposal to allow newspapers to change from profit (in theory) to non-profit corporations. Unless there’s a part of the proposal I’m not aware of, it has nothing to do with the government steering or controlling where the money goes. Unless they’re talking about creating a new section of tax law in section 501(c), newspapers would have a similar status to the National Review, Heritage Foundation, Weekly Standard, etc.

        I don’t think it will work,mind you. But I don’t see this as the “government takeover of the press” that is being alleged.

        Sean Parnell
        President
        Center for Competitive Politics
        http://www.campaignfreedom.org

        • seandparnell

          comment meant for JoeG, not EPU.

          Sean Parnell
          President
          Center for Competitive Politics
          http://www.campaignfreedom.org

        • janis

          We’re fretting needlessly over trivia and you, the all-knowing Seanparnell, have arrived to calm our silly fears and set us straight.

          Why is it that you are so dense, or deluded, that you keep trying to prop up what this administration does? And why is it that you can’t just walk away from RedState instead of showing up here to correct our errant thinking? If we’re wrong, which we haven’t been so far, then what difference does that make to you?

          And if you truly believe that Obama would buy newspapers and not use them like a rented mule for his own purposes, then you might want to talk to the ex-CEO of Chrysler about how hands-off Obama chooses to be to his vassal companies.

          • seandparnell

            Look, I’m offering my opinion. You disagree, fine. Make your case. Point out where I’m wrong.

            Me, I have my own opinions about what is and is not a threat to the free and unfettered exercise of the First Amendment. Taxpayer financing of campaigns, that’s a threat. Imposition of the so-called “fairness doctrine” through the backdoor (“localism”), that’s a threat. More campaign finance “reform,” that’s a threat. Attacks on and attempts to regulate as “astrorturf” citizens protesting their government, that’s a threat.

            Worrying that conversion of newspapers to 501)c)3 status is somehow going to put the Dems (or anybody else) in a position to dictate content, not really a threat. You may differ, but I tend to think worrying about non-existent threats makes us look a little silly and less credible when the real threats do pop up (“Oh, no need to listen to those crazed RedStaters about localism, they said the same things about newspapers becoming nonprofit”), and diverts attention from real threats.

            Oh, and there’s nothing in that bill about the government buying newspapers. Unless there’s another proposal lurking out there?

            Sean Parnell
            President
            Center for Competitive Politics
            http://www.campaignfreedom.org

          • janis

            you’ll see that they have offered all the reasons possible why they think you are wrong, reasons I agree with as well. As to your opinion about what does and doesn’t threaten free speech, I find it healthier to object in advance rather than finding myself and others muzzled because we decided to take a wait and see attitude at the outset.

            Do you not recognize the arrogance and ambition of this administration? How you can so generously ascribe benign intentions to one single thing they propose to do involving our freedoms is a mystery.

            Your attitude that we can be described as “crazed RedStaters” because we’re alarmed by this speaks volumes about your attitude toward most of us here.

      • seandparnell

        I think you only have 1 front. There’s no tax dollars, yours or anyone else’s, that’s going to go to the newspapers, assuming we’re just talking about the proposal to convert to nonprofit status – or is there some provision that specifically provides for direct tax dollar support? I haven’t seen it, but who knows what amendments are lurking.

        The subsidy is real, assuming you’re talking about contributions from individuals to newspapers. Those contributions could be deducted from the donors taxes. Subscriptions wouldn’t be tax deductible, though (because the subscriber receives something tangible, i.e. their daily copy of the Times or whatever).

        But I’m not sure that really equates to government control – the Weekly Standard, National Review, Cato Institute – not really buckling under to Obama, I don’t think, and they all have the same status as is being discussed for newspapers.

        Besides, I’m not sure it all matters – taking (c)3 status won’t affect at all the two largest sources of revenue for newspapers, subscriptions and advertising. It would just allow the NY Times to accept a contribution to keep printing, and given the extensive size of the Times I don’t think that can be sustained for long with contributions.

        Bottom line, this is an idea that will fail, but not one that will allow the government to exert more control, except that they couldn’t endorse candidates explicitly. And I don’t think that’s going to be a threat to Republicans or conservative candidates…

        Sean Parnell
        President
        Center for Competitive Politics
        http://www.campaignfreedom.org

        • Aaron Gardner

          According to Ben Cardin’s S.673 the qualifying newspapers would not only recieve tax breaks but also be able to mark contributions as deductible if I am reading that correctly.

          By the way, the qualifications part is where you have govt control of content. It may seem innocuous but it really isn’t since they are saying that qualifying newspapers must meet an educational purpose. Who decides what is educational? How will that not affect control of content?

          • seandparnell

            I’m not sure how it changes anything, though. The “tax break” is that contributions are tax deductible. So Soros if he wanted to could give $100 million to the New York Times to prop them up. For a year. Even he’s going to run out of money fairly quickly if he’s trying to prop up failing newspapers around the country.

            Again, it just means that the NY Times could become just like National Review, The Nation, Weekly Standard, etc. There’s no taxpayer dollars going to them.

            Since I don’t see Obama controlling the content of National Review, no, I don’t see how this gives government control over the content of newspapers that elect to become nonprofits.

            Sean Parnell
            President
            Center for Competitive Politics
            http://www.campaignfreedom.org

          • Aaron Gardner

            Here is a change that you are not taking into account.

            ?(r) Qualified Newspaper Corporation- For purposes of this title, a corporation or organization shall be treated as a qualified newspaper corporation if–
            ?(1) the trade or business of such corporation or organization consists of publishing on a regular basis a newspaper for general circulation,
            ?(2) the newspaper published by such corporation or organization contains local, national, and international news stories of interest to the general public and the distribution of such newspaper is necessary or valuable in achieving an educational purpose, and
            ?(3) the preparation of the material contained in such newspaper follows methods generally accepted as educational in character.?.</blockquote

            Found here.

            Come one man, read what I am linking and quit trying to act like this isn’t a change. Who decides what is educational content? Who decides what methods are generally accepted as educational in character?

          • Aaron Gardner
          • seandparnell

            That language about “educational purpose” and such is boilerplate, standard stuff that applies to all (c)3 organizations. Including mine.

            http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=175418,00.html

            It does not put the government in charge of deciding what is “educational” or not.

            I’m as big of an opponent as anyone here when it comes to government meddling in the First Amendment (more on the speech, assembly, and petition side than press and religion), and don’t at all favor government having the power to try to control or guide political speech. But I do not see this bill as a threat, just as a proposal that won’t make any difference one way or another.

            Sean Parnell
            President
            Center for Competitive Politics
            http://www.campaignfreedom.org

          • Aaron Gardner

            You still didn’t answer the question. Regardless of it being boilerplate you must question what it does.

          • Achance

            Right now, most of the use of union dues money in politics is in the guise of “member education” so they can keep their non-profit, tax-free status. If you believe what they do is eduction, let me show you my cool bridge.

            Now, if Comrade Obama and TurboTax Tim decide that what you’re doing is the right kind of education, you not only lose your tax-free status, you get your own personal team of auditors to make sure that what you do conforms with their ideas of education.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Heck the Obama Admin is investigating a Health Insurance company because they dared to say something contrary to Obama’s Health Care agenda.

          • seandparnell

            It shows that there is an amazingly broad and tolerant definition of “education” permitted by the IRS regs – meaning that newspapers have little to fear.

            Yes, the IRS could get abusive. But that’s not much different than is the case now – If the Las Vegas paper were to write an op-ed critical of Obama, theoretically the IRS could start hassling them right now, as a for-profit company.

            Sean Parnell
            President
            Center for Competitive Politics
            http://www.campaignfreedom.org

          • Aaron Gardner
          • seandparnell

            I accept that the government doesn’t get to decide what is and is not “education” in this context. As do you, I hope. Otherwise National Review is in big, big trouble.

            Sean Parnell
            President
            Center for Competitive Politics
            http://www.campaignfreedom.org

          • Aaron Gardner
          • seandparnell

            At most, I’d guess a few public libraries that subscribe to NR. If that’s what’s bothering you, you should probably know that there’s no government money involved in this proposal either.

            The proposal is simple. It’s also dumb, in my opinion (as I stated, I don’t think figuring out what to do with their profits is exactly a problem for most newspapers right now). The bill would allow newspapers to convert to nonprofit status. That’s it. The big deal is that it exempts advertising revenue from taxable income (a kind of arcane thing having to do with how nonprofits book certain income that doesn’t come in the form of memberships, program services, donations, etc).

            There is no provision of this bill that allows the government to dictate or influence the content of newspapers that elect nonprofit status. There is no provision of the bill that provides for direct government subsidies to newspapers that elect nonprofit status. There is no provision of this bill that provides for the government to purchase newspaper publishers.

            There is nothing in this bill that would allow the government to do anything than treat newspaper publishers that elect nonprofit status any differently than they currently treat National Review, The Nation, The Weekly Standard, or any of the Heartland Institute’s public policy newspapers.

            Also, it’s worth remembering that when the government wants to pressure publishers, it really doesn’t matter what their tax status is. Witness Rod Blagojevich’s apparent attempt to strong-arm the Chicago Tribune: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/the-fairness-doctrine-rod-blagojevich-and-richard-nixon

            Sean Parnell
            President
            Center for Competitive Politics
            http://www.campaignfreedom.org

          • Aaron Gardner
          • seandparnell

            Sigh.

            I assume you’re still hung up on the “educational” thing? Are you arguing that it will somehow mean something different for newspapers than it does for other nonprofits?

            Well, you apparently believe it will. I don’t, and it’s probably worth nothing that I’m somebody who has to deal with the “educational” definition in order to retain my organization’s (c)3. Basically as long as I’m putting any sort of information out to the public, and I’m not specifically propagandizing on behalf of a political party or candidates, I meet the test.

            You’re free to believe whatever you want. But the “educational” thing is, for me, not an issue at all.

            Sean Parnell
            President
            Center for Competitive Politics
            http://www.campaignfreedom.org

          • Aaron Gardner

            With free speech warriors like you it’s no wonder we have McCain Feingold on the books. You are doing a great job.

          • Streiff

            federal law, federal regulations, legal tradition, and case law. Otherwise your statement about the IRS auditing papers today is moronic.

          • seandparnell

            I may have lost the thread, but I agree completely – siccing the IRS on a paper because they aren’t toeing the line would be a massive violation of the First Amendment, not to mention other laws and regs.

            And yet there are many here that seem absolutely certain that give 501(c)3 status to newspapers, and the government will have an open season to dictate and influence the content of those newspapers.

            Not true, or at least I don’t believe so. Or do you believe that a government that is so cautious about violating the First Amendment rights of a for-profit newspaper is all of a sudden going to squeal with glee that now they can step into the editorial shoes for newspapers electing nonprofit status?

            Sean Parnell
            President
            Center for Competitive Politics
            http://www.campaignfreedom.org

          • Streiff

            the op-ed page of any newspaper would be in violation of 501(c)3 charter. There are probably other IRS chapters they could organize under but advocating candidates is illegal under 501(c)3 and advocating policies can be problematic. Just my view as an officer in a 501(c)3 and a 501(c)4.

            The difference is that launching an IRS investigation of a hostile paper is clearly illegal unless there is a real tax issue. Breaking a (c)3 for violating IRS regulations is done routinely.

          • seandparnell

            I’ve noted previously that endorsements of candidates would be off the table for a nonprofit newspaper. And the bill specifically proposes (c)3 status.

            Aside from that, though, there’s not much of an issue with the government meddling in what a paper covers and any particular slant it takes. And that’s what’s being alleged here, isn’t it? That the government is going to be essentially placing their political flunkies in the editor’s office dictating the content of papers. That is the contention I’ve been arguing against.

            And they could still advocate specific policies and endorse legislation, so long as that was not a significant portion of their activities.

            And that’s my view as an officer in a (c)3, someone who follows First Amendment issues very closely, and someone who used to work for another (c)3 that, wouldn’t you know it, publishes newspapers – 5 of them, in fact.

            Frankly, I don’t know what people here are so worked up about – for starters most of them have their facts wrong (there’s no government purchase of newspapers, no taxpayer dollars flowing directly to newspapers, and no real threat of the government trying to leverage the (c)3 status to gain favorable coverage. What, are people afraid that if this went through the newspapers would all of a sudden become pro-Obama?

            Sean Parnell
            President
            Center for Competitive Politics
            http://www.campaignfreedom.org

          • Achance

            Though this lot is more likely to do it, it ain’t like Republicans have never used the good offices of the IRS to “win friends and influence people.” Your non-profit status is whatever the IRS says it is. If you do or say something the government doesn’t like, maybe you get a visit from your friendly local IRS agent. I think that has a chilling effect on freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

          • seandparnell

            My books are in order, and I know that the second they start saying ‘we’re not sure what you’re doing is ‘education’ like your (c)3 status requires,” then I have some very good attorneys that will make mincemeat out of anything they try.

            And I don’t buy ink by the barrel, as newspapers do.

            And I’ve been saying things the government doesn’t like for about 2 decades now, and my friends at National Review for even longer. If the government really wants to mess with me, or the New York Times, or anyone else, they really don’t need the (c)3 status thing as a pretext. There’s plenty of ways government can try to push the media around. OSHA alone would be a goldmine for a vindictive administration.

            Again, the thinking here seems to be that newspapers right now are protected from government interference, but once they elect (c)3 status then they’re opening themselves up. I have no reason to believe this is true.

            Sean Parnell
            President
            Center for Competitive Politics
            http://www.campaignfreedom.org

          • Achance

            You seem to be the sort of Republican they like.

          • JadedByPolitics
          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            How can you reconcile a vigorous free press with restrictions on daily newspapers to strictly “educational” purposes. The issue of future governmental instrusions as to permitted “educational” purposes may be a slippery slope argument (thought I think we’re headed down something very close, see below), but for a newspaper to accept such a restriction is a jump off the cliff.

            How can a newspaper do its job of investigational reporting if it has to vet everything through an “educational” sieve, or instance. Or criticize the ruling party?

            Indeed, we’re already headed down a similar slope given the Humana investigation that has been lauched for “falsehoods” and the prior restraint/censorship demands for removing any criticism from their website. Suppose a non-profit newspaper were to print a similar statement that the government viewed as false; what would keep it from being labeled a violation of educational purpose and open the door to investigation that could result in a loss if it’s non-profit status.

            And given the risk of such governmental actions, would this not lead to self-censorship and consequent bias by the paper seeking to avoid trouble with the authorities. And of course, pro-governmental statements would not be subject to an investigation of their “truth”.

            You don’t need censorship boards when intimidation (and a few examples) will do the trick.

            Sean, not all the media can be a “referee” like you, especially when one of the sides has no interest in a fair competition. And if they take out enough of the other side, the referee will become irrelevant. I suggest you warm up your car and have the engine running before you try to referee much longer.

        • E Pluribus Unum

          My point of view, admittedly cynical, is that what was announced is not what they’ll end up doing. I believe they intend to fund the liberal print media to insulate them from legitimate market pressures. But once there’s money, soon there will be boards, commissions, panels, guidelines, all that stuff.

          But we agree on this point – it won’t happen. Even the suggestion will raise up a hue and cry to rival the August recess.

          • seandparnell

            And if that is in fact what winds up being proposed, then I’ll be right there objecting. Until it actually reaches that point (and I don’t believe it will, I think this is just a bad idea, not a nefarious idea), I’m going to stick with my “move along people, nothing to see here” Officer Barbrady interpretation.

            Sean Parnell
            President
            Center for Competitive Politics
            http://www.campaignfreedom.org

        • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

          It’s the government regulation of permissable content that is the real and present threat to a free press.

          The prime danger is not the subsidy, but rather content regulation

          Your invoking of National Review, etc, precisely makes the opposite point you intend. These publications are focused on discussion, commentary, educating readers in order to persuade. This model is totally antithetical to daily newspapers.

          Newspapers deal with reporting news, investigatory reporting, challenging politicians, advocacy. Bringing them under non-profit content regulation would neuter them. Good bye free press. Unless the Soviet media was your model for newspapers.

          • seandparnell

            With the exception that newspapers could no longer endorse candidates, there’s nothing in the (c)3 world of regulation that would prevent or limit in any way a newspaper wishing to run any story they wish, with whatever political overtones they wished.

            National Review is exactly the right comparison – calling it’s activities “discussion, commentary, educating readers in order to persuade” don’t in any way suggest that newspapers would somehow not enjoy the same protections as National Review.

            Sean Parnell
            President
            Center for Competitive Politics
            http://www.campaignfreedom.org

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            An article critical of a local politician – or a city council decision, for instance, could be viewed as a contribution in kind to their opponent’s campaign. Similarly, they’d have to be supercritical of using press-release material.

            In any case, as Art notes, the threat of an investigation – with its expense to defend and bad publicity – would have a chilling effect on press freedom.

          • seandparnell

            Read your campaign finance law, you’ll see that media coverage isn’t an in-kind contribution. I

            And the threat of investigation is real, but not at all connected to being a nonprofit. As others here have noted, HHS at the urging of Senator Max Baucus has decided to ignore the First Amendment rights of Humana to express an opinion on his legislation. Being a for-profit hasn’t shielded them at all.

            Sean Parnell
            President
            Center for Competitive Politics
            http://www.campaignfreedom.org

    • Read Chesterton

      Public radio.

      • E Pluribus Unum

        Yes, a bastion of fair and balanced marxism.

      • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

        NPR was created with it’s subsidy and mandate from the very beginning. It was always purposed as the “unofficial” voice of the left.

        That it’s government funding has survived all these years even with Republicans in control is just more evidence of a lack of understanding of the nature of our government and constitution by it’s elected officials.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          kyle8 twists things around to bash Republicans.

          So what’s your DKos username?

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            You are doing your job, being a cheerleader, that’s great,

            I am doing my job trying to hold people accountable who call themselves conservatives.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            You just keep telling yourself you’re better than everyone else and that’s why you’re a lifetime failure in getting your political aims achieved.

        • Achance

          It was an extension of what was then called educational TV and was supposed to get stuff, principally classical music and talk, on the radio that otherwise would not make it commercially. It was all caught up in the “Beautify America” stuff that Lady Bird Johnson was so into and was supposed to be a way to “mainstream” some more high-brow culture out to us rubes. PBS and NPR both got high-jacked by the Left, Gramsci style.

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            but the people who created it certainly intended what it has become from the very beginning. I am sure they sounded sincere when they said it was just about the “arts” and edjoocatin them dang hillbillies.

  • nessa

    The First Amendment doesn’t expressly forbid it.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    I think there is enough opportunity for “abridging the freedom of the press” via govt involvement/ownership but that’s me, I’m not lawyer, much less a card carrying member of the ACLU.

    The worst opposition they could expect from within Congress would be similar to the complaints about “requiring citizens to purchase health insurance.” There would be a couple mentions of it and some grumbling but I don’t see any great defenders of the Constitution in Congress.

    If the Congress ignores it it will come down to the SCOTUS and they will do their best to ignore it as long as they can. Even a couple years down the road, if the SCOTUS decides to take a case there is no guarantee the libs and squishes on the court won’t allow it.

    The only thing we can do is force our elected representatives to take action before the action is taken, the SCOTUS is not the only branch of government that takes an oath to defend the Constitution.

    This will show us which Republicans are listening to the Tea Parties.

    • E Pluribus Unum

      IMO, they might slip some spending line item into some spending bill (whether we find out about it beforehand or not), and the GOP will be unable to stop it.

      Doing that would be a huge negative and cost the Dems even more seats (then we can eventually undo any subsidizing once we control the House.

      It’s a fool’s errand for them to even try.

      • nessa

        IMO its a fools errand to continue pushing ObamaCare, its a fools errand to continue spending like drunken sailors, to continue denigrating those who disagree with them, to push crap and tax, hell, its a fools errand to continue pushing their far left agenda.

        I’m afraid they’re hoping to get enough of these power grabbing bills through Congress that they will have a lock on the 2010, and all future elections. Expanding unions, expanding the entitlement class with ObamaCare, buying support via Crap and Tax, actually controlling the already complicit media would fit nicely in their repertoire.

        Maybe I should be posting this reply in the Glenn Beck/Conspiracy Theorist thread, I’ll just go back to lining my room with aluminum foil and shut up now.

    • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

      the constitution would not forbid the creation of a ministry of propaganda, so long as the rights of dissenters was not abridged.

  • harlan

    Repeal, Rescind, Reset….

    Undo every bit of damage the dems will have done since 2006
    .

    • Read Chesterton

      To post the same thing to multiple diaries.

  • bk

    “Let me make this perfectly clear – I am not interested in taking over newspapers.”

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    Enjoy it over at TheRealRevo.com:

    http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=13453

    Thank you.

    ColdWarrior

    www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com

  • Long Don Johnson

    Not one tax-payer dime…

    last time I tried to ‘read’ the paper, I couldn’t….why?..because they made the font smaller to fit more on less pages…brilliant

    I had to bust out the Tri-focals

  • Warrior

    NPR and the CPB. Bastions of liberal drivel both….

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    That is, non-profit status includes agreement to content regulation in order to protect your tax status, in particular to what would constitute impermissable political activity.

    So the free press would become shackled to government agents deciding what they can or cannot publish regarding the government, which means backdoor or self censorship by a press that is dependent on the government teat for it’s financial solvency.

    So we will have the shell of a newspaper industry that has voluntarily agreed to government censorship – but even worse, this then becomes justification for shutting down other public venues of speech through burdensome taxation, new libel/slander laws with owner liability for all content, or instance, licensing regulations (such as Fairness doctrine and/or localism) – with the newspapers cheerleading these efforts to wipe out their competitors.

    Think McCain-Feingold special exemption for newspapers and magnify this with multiple other discriminatory regulations and laws.

    Welcome to Orwell 2.0, the 21st century version.

  • leehazel

    Has any one considered that the “slow play” of the Stimulus Funds may be very deliberate.

    Thar among other things that these funds are being “held back” to provide a mammoth election year “Slush Fund” for the Obamachine.

    And, what better way than to use these funds to “purchase” a “drool bucket” press.

    This is Stimulus we can understand. It is morally corrupt on several levels and slips carefully around the 1st Amendment (as if what is going on right now is not a 1st Amendment Tragedy).

    I am in my seventies and I have never seen anything like the 9/12 turnout for the grandaddy of all Tea Parties. God Bless America and all those wonder ful people who care, really care.

    PC is Thought Control
    LEE

    Obama has really got to feel right at home in the criminally corrupt Washington District of Corruption (formerly WDC). Chicago on the Potomac

    • E Pluribus Unum

      That the bulk of the porkulus funds will be spent in 2010 to provide jobs , prop up local economies and spread those stupid signs all over the place and make the Dems look good.

      I believe it, 100%.

      • Richard Mullins
  • http://spritelywatchdog.blogspot.com spritelywatchdog

    If they do bailout the newspapers, we will have official state run media. We must keep our country free.

  • Pingback: Homepage