another bailout coming? 
Bailout the US media and papers?
- Thread starter TheMasterOfOrion
- Start date
Um, any links or anything to say that there might be a bail out? Personally, i am getting tired of these bail outs.
Jennifer Foster: Gov’t bailout of newspapers tempting, but dangerous
http://www.oanow.com/oan/news/opini...t_of_newspapers_tempting_but_dangerous/53238/
http://www.oanow.com/oan/news/opini...t_of_newspapers_tempting_but_dangerous/53238/
It would be nice if something could be done; it's a shame to see newspapers dying all over the place. But it's the same for all print media. Between the Internet and declining literacy rates, things are not looking good. 
Right. Banks and Cars will survive. Newspapers won't (in their current form). We need them, but it's up to them to re-make themselves into what they need to be. If they all fail and someone else fills that role, that's fine. That's not the case with banks.
It's funny how the media criticizes *EVIL* businesses that earn profit and employ people when the media is, in itself, a business. Remember the Time-Warner-AOL merger fiasco? There was a time when many of the largest US cities had three major newspapers where the weakest either went under or merged with a competitor. Now, the axe is flying at almost all of them *GASP* in the name of CUTTING COSTS. 
I would guess your tongue is firmly inserted in your cheek, but I think you believe your own hype. I know it irks you, but it was actually voters who "installed" Barack Obama as president -- a lot of them. -- RR
OK, I have mixed feelings. I don't think a bailout is needed. There will always be a media. It's simply changing because of the Internet.
A little disclosure here. I was once a journalist -- I worked in the business media, writing mainly about mutual funds and hedge funds. So I have mixed feelings about newspapers seemingly going the way of the dodo.
On the one hand, the business imperative of consolidation in the media means fewer diverse voices.
On the other hand, it isn't journalists who've screwed up newspapers. It's the fault of the business side, the folks who were supposed to adapt to the changing environment and figure out how to make their properties profitable. That's not the purview of writers and editors, although many had ideas that were ignored by the business side because they came from, well, writers and editors!
The media is one of the few businesses that is unable to leverage its product -- newsgathering -- into a profit-making center.
What newspapers should do is totally scrap their printing presses, take that money, and completely move their operations to the 'Net, and not allow any of their content on the 'Net for free. Have teaser stuff on their sites, like a line or two from their edition, and if you want to read the whole article, you have to subscribe. Certainly, some like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are doing this.
It can happen. It just takes some cojones and some brains. But if you've ever dealt with some of these bozos on the business side, as I have, you'll know that brains and cojones are in short supply.
BTW, I voted "Short-term loan." We need a healthy, thriving media.
Red Ranger
A little disclosure here. I was once a journalist -- I worked in the business media, writing mainly about mutual funds and hedge funds. So I have mixed feelings about newspapers seemingly going the way of the dodo.
On the one hand, the business imperative of consolidation in the media means fewer diverse voices.
On the other hand, it isn't journalists who've screwed up newspapers. It's the fault of the business side, the folks who were supposed to adapt to the changing environment and figure out how to make their properties profitable. That's not the purview of writers and editors, although many had ideas that were ignored by the business side because they came from, well, writers and editors!
The media is one of the few businesses that is unable to leverage its product -- newsgathering -- into a profit-making center.
What newspapers should do is totally scrap their printing presses, take that money, and completely move their operations to the 'Net, and not allow any of their content on the 'Net for free. Have teaser stuff on their sites, like a line or two from their edition, and if you want to read the whole article, you have to subscribe. Certainly, some like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are doing this.
It can happen. It just takes some cojones and some brains. But if you've ever dealt with some of these bozos on the business side, as I have, you'll know that brains and cojones are in short supply.
BTW, I voted "Short-term loan." We need a healthy, thriving media.
Red Ranger
I agree. It would be tough though for them to accept government money in any form and still maintain the image of being independent.It would be nice if something could be done; it's a shame to see newspapers dying all over the place. But it's the same for all print media. Between the Internet and declining literacy rates, things are not looking good.
That's the same, idiotic thinking behind the auto bailouts. The companies aren't competitive and people aren't buying the product. The part in italics is a fundamental part of economics.
DUH. The problem with social Darwinism is it's usually OK if other bizs fail -- until its the biz you're in. Then they want a bailout!
Notice, oh guru of economics, the words short-term loan, which you yourself bolded. Short-term means temporary. A loan has to be paid back. Money goes back into the treasury. Guess you failed to connect the dots, pal.
Red Ranger
We already have one. It's called the internet.
As long as the government's willing to bail out Target I'll be okay.
Ah . . . no. The Internet doesn't have standards. Journalists strive to provide more than one side to the story. I know that's terribly old school, but thing like spelling, punctuation, grammar, and facts, stll matter. OK, now I'll hop off my high horse.
-- RR
You're joking, right?
All the Internet does is give people a means of reacting and responding to the mainstream media.
Or perhaps you can point me to a non-MSM website that explained the AIG scandle as well as the Washington Post recently did in their multi-day series. I'll be right here if you can find one.
They can look to investors for a short term loan. If investors aren't interested, it's not up to the Government (TAXPAYERS) to bail them out.
Neither do journalists as we found out with Dan Rather and the plagiarists over at the NYT.
And Fox News and Drudge. But please, ignore the raging inadequacies of your side.
Similar threads
