Say YES to a newspaper bailout!
Do they not provide a public good?
Malkin obviously doesn’t think so. But I’m not so sure. Do we want to be a country without newspapers? What about the vast population that can not afford internet access? Newspapers can be free (like the ones they hand out in metro stations and such). I think a compelling argument could be made that newspapers are indeed a public good and we need them for the country’s good.
The problem is that Malkin doesn’t provide any reasons for opposing such a plan, other than her free-market ideology. Hasn’t the “free-market” been shown to be worthless and dangerous over the years?
There is something to be said about a sense of community and identity that is cultivated through the traditional printing presses.
December 3rd, 2008 10:59
newspaper bias…let em die out
December 3rd, 2008 11:14
See your conservative roots must be tearing at you on this one. On the one hand you like traditional things, like reading the Sunday paper in front of a warm fire. On the other hand you’re inclined to let failing businesses just die. A tough call, eh?
December 3rd, 2008 12:05
WHY are newspapers failing?
is not replacing older subscribers because they don’t have the time or patience for sitting down to read through a big bulky paper? (certainly a strong possibility)
– Is it because readers have found alternative sources of news? (a very likely contributor)
– Is it because subscribers are dropping due to hard times? (possibly, but newspapers are pretty low cost, relatively speaking)
– Is it because subscribers are leaving in disgust over reporting bias? (likely, although those numbers are probably relatively low)
– Is it because Gen Y (or whatever young people are called nowadays
In any case, none of the above reasons makes the papers deserving of a *bailout* at MY expense! It’s been said, why subsidize quaintness? I agree. Let them roll with the punches like any business. There are certainly not a critical industry. YMMV
December 3rd, 2008 12:13
Why not subsidize quaintness? In the scheme of things I’d much prefer my taxpayer money go to saving newspapers than funding churches, for instance. Wouldn’t you?
December 3rd, 2008 12:49
No.
December 3rd, 2008 12:50
Good analysis.
Why am I not surprised you’d be for government dollars funding churches but not newspapers.
December 3rd, 2008 13:57
who said i was for Government dollars funding churches…i’m just not for them funding failing enterprises.
December 3rd, 2008 14:06
My question was: “In the scheme of things I’d much prefer my taxpayer money go to saving newspapers than funding churches, for instance. Wouldn’t you?”
And your response: “No.”
That implies to me anyway that you prefer gov’t funding churches over newspapers.
December 3rd, 2008 14:10
Right, if its one or the other, I would demonstrate a preference.
December 3rd, 2008 14:12
Right, you’d go for the unconstitutional one.
December 3rd, 2008 16:33
I’m not so sure that bailing out some enterprises and not others is all that constitutional.
December 3rd, 2008 16:38
Now you’re saying something interesting. But upon what do you base this?