The Big Cat Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Journalism failed as a private venture. It is not profitable, hasn't been for 30 years. The Founding Fathers and every journalism-related Supreme Court ruling has touted, without question, the fourth estate as indispensable to a functioning democracy. Early 19 Century postal subsidies for distribution of weeklies equivalent to $30B of today's GDP. Journalism as a public good, and heavily subsidized by the government: GO! ------------- I don't think journalism should be a for-profit industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Journalism failed as a private venture. It is not profitable, hasn't been for 30 years. The Founding Fathers and every journalism-related Supreme Court ruling has touted, without question, the fourth estate as indispensable to a functioning democracy. Early 19 Century postal subsidies for distribution of weeklies equivalent to $30B of today's GDP. Journalism as a public good, and heavily subsidized by the government: GO! ------------- I don't think journalism should be a for-profit industry. I think subsizied journalism is a government-controlled media, and contrary to the First Amedment principles of a free press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Journalism failed as a private venture. It is not profitable, hasn't been for 30 years. The Founding Fathers and every journalism-related Supreme Court ruling has touted, without question, the fourth estate as indispensable to a functioning democracy. Early 19 Century postal subsidies for distribution of weeklies equivalent to $30B of today's GDP. Journalism as a public good, and heavily subsidized by the government: GO! ------------- I don't think journalism should be a for-profit industry. This post reads like the letter "Ralphie" wrote to his teacher in order to lobby for the Red Ryder BB Gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 This post reads like the letter "Ralphie" wrote to his teacher in order to lobby for the Red Ryder BB Gun. We'll let it go. It's one of Big kitty's better ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 5, 2010 Author Share Posted March 5, 2010 I think subsizied journalism is a government-controlled media, and contrary to the First Amedment principles of a free press. Every example from around the globe would counter this claim. Every country (and again, most are Northern European) with the highest in journalism subsidies also rank highest in "freedom" "freedom of speech" etc. Now, I know these are arbitrary rankings done by American think-tanks, but I suppose if we're going to debate levels of freedom, might as well go to the sources quantifying them. Also, may be we should go to the 2000-2008 archives to see how much the government dominated the NPR message. This post reads like the letter "Ralphie" wrote to his teacher in order to lobby for the Red Ryder BB Gun. Haha, and "this thing which tells time." You got me. Didn't really spend much time crafting this one. There are a thousand bullet points to go through, I just rounded-up a few and spat them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Every example from around the globe would counter this claim. Every country (and again, most are Northern European) with the highest in journalism subsidies also rank highest in "freedom" "freedom of speech" etc. Now, I know these are arbitrary rankings done by American think-tanks, but I suppose if we're going to debate levels of freedom, might as well go to the sources quantifying them. Also, may be we should go to the 2000-2008 archives to see how much the government dominated the NPR message. How do they rank in "free press"? And why would you think that we here can implement the same programs they have in Northern Europe? Different cultures. Also, maybe we should go back to the 2000-2008 archives to see all the stories about how the Bush Administration manipulated or withheld information from the media, or used it to promote the Iraq war agenda. The truth or falsehood of those stories aside...you're arguing the benefits of a system that makes that manipulation even easier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Journalism has not failed as a private venture. The private ventures that have been very succesfsul in delivering very good journalism over the past century just happen to be going through a major transformation, while the journalism is still very good. When the private ventures figure out a new business model in the digital age, journalism will continue to be very good. I think it's a given that you can't understand the distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 5, 2010 Author Share Posted March 5, 2010 How do they rank in "free press"? And why would you think that we here can implement the same programs they have in Northern Europe? Different cultures. Also, maybe we should go back to the 2000-2008 archives to see all the stories about how the Bush Administration manipulated or withheld information from the media, or used it to promote the Iraq war agenda. The truth or falsehood of those stories aside...you're arguing the benefits of a system that makes that manipulation even easier? Same for freedom of the press. Don't think we should implement the same program. One nifty idea is an "america-corp" for young journalists which actually puts reporters back in state-houses, something that doesn't even exist in some states anymore. GG, let this be one of my factoids to explain my response to you below. How does it make it easier? How do subsidies for independent journalists equate with the news shifting that goes on to appease corporate interests. Right now there are 4 PR people for every 1 journalist in this country. Orwell had it wrong, Big Brother's not watching us, we're watching Big-Brother. Journalism has not failed as a private venture. The private ventures that have been very succesfsul in delivering very good journalism over the past century just happen to be going through a major transformation, while the journalism is still very good. When the private ventures figure out a new business model in the digital age, journalism will continue to be very good. I think it's a given that you can't understand the distinction. Everything you've just said is categorically false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Everything you've just said is categorically false. Please explain how and why what he stated is "categorically false." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Please explain how and why what he stated is "categorically false." What's the over/under on number of posts before he says you know jack **** about journalism? I'll say three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 5, 2010 Author Share Posted March 5, 2010 Please explain how and why what he stated is "categorically false." Busy doing a show for the next 90 minutes. I'll have a detailed answer for you presently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Busy doing a show for the next 90 minutes. I'll have a detailed answer for you presently. The terms kids have these days for masturbation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Journalism failed as a private venture. It is not profitable, hasn't been for 30 years. The Founding Fathers and every journalism-related Supreme Court ruling has touted, without question, the fourth estate as indispensable to a functioning democracy. Early 19 Century postal subsidies for distribution of weeklies equivalent to $30B of today's GDP. Journalism as a public good, and heavily subsidized by the government: GO! ------------- I don't think journalism should be a for-profit industry. It's not accurate to say journalism hasn't been profitable for 30 years. Plenty of journalism companies have made profits. Fewer are profitable now is true due to the fragmentation of the market (lot's of free stuff can be read online). The journalism industry has to figure out how to be profitable and that starts with producing a product that people are willing to buy. Apparently the public does not see the quality they want in for-pay journalism. The best argument against subsidized journalism is what DC Tom said regarding freedom of the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Everything you've just said is categorically false. Is your opinion based on your life long involvement in journalism or the private ventures that produce journalism? Or is this something your read on the bathroom wall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Journalism failed as a private venture. It is not profitable, hasn't been for 30 years. The Founding Fathers and every journalism-related Supreme Court ruling has touted, without question, the fourth estate as indispensable to a functioning democracy. Early 19 Century postal subsidies for distribution of weeklies equivalent to $30B of today's GDP. Journalism as a public good, and heavily subsidized by the government: GO! ------------- I don't think journalism should be a for-profit industry. Do your own home work, Sue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Journalism failed as a private venture. It is not profitable, hasn't been for 30 years. The Founding Fathers and every journalism-related Supreme Court ruling has touted, without question, the fourth estate as indispensable to a functioning democracy. Early 19 Century postal subsidies for distribution of weeklies equivalent to $30B of today's GDP. Journalism as a public good, and heavily subsidized by the government: GO! ------------- I don't think journalism should be a for-profit industry. If you would like to see a clear example of this, look up the news sources in Italy. The Prime Minister owns all the major news agencies, and well, look how good that's going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Journalism financed by the government is propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Journalism financed by the government is propaganda. No it's not. Respectfully, Pravda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 5, 2010 Author Share Posted March 5, 2010 Journalism financed by the government is propaganda. And journalism financed by investors for profit is...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 5, 2010 Author Share Posted March 5, 2010 If you would like to see a clear example of this, look up the news sources in Italy. The Prime Minister owns all the major news agencies, and well, look how good that's going. This example and other despotic examples invalidate the countries where state-funded journalism does work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts