Journalism is a Public Good

[The Big Cat]

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.

 

And again, the most subsidized countries have proven this to be completely false.

 

I understand how that assumption is easy to make, government funds news, government controls news, but that's not the reality.

[The Big Cat]

The terms kids have these days for masturbation.

 

Yes, my propensity for 90 minute jerk-off sessions earned me the nickname Raw Dog.

[The Big Cat]

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.

 

DC Tom's argument is invalid.

 

As for yours regarding profitablity, you're equating monetary value with societal value. That's just silly given what we all know "sells."

 

You're right, real news doesn't sell. But like I mentioned, the Found Fathers and the Supreme Court would continually disagree that because it isn't profitable, it isn't valuable, hence the notion of taking the profit out.

[DC Tom]

DC Tom's argument is invalid.

 

Because...you say so?

[GG]

No it's not.

 

Respectfully,

 

Pravda

 

Ain't that the truth?

[GG]

This example and other despotic examples invalidate the countries where state-funded journalism does work?

 

Italy is a despotic country?

[DC Tom]

Italy is a despotic country?

 

Forget it, he's rolling.

[The Big Cat]

Italy is a despotic country?

 

Evidently.

[IDBillzFan]

Busy doing a show for the next 90 minutes. I'll have a detailed answer for you presently.

It appears you're back from your Friday matinee performance at The Pink Poodle, so I look forward to your detailed answer as to why GG was wrong.

 

My thanks in advance.

[DC Tom]

It appears you're back from your Friday matinee performance at The Pink Poodle, so I look forward to your detailed answer as to why GG was wrong.

 

My thanks in advance.

 

You mean "Evidently" wasn't detailed enough for you?

[The Big Cat]

You mean "Evidently" wasn't detailed enough for you?

 

No, I'm pretty sure LA was referring to GG's claim that journalism is alive and well in this country.

[keepthefaith]

And again, the most subsidized countries have proven this to be completely false.

 

I understand how that assumption is easy to make, government funds news, government controls news, but that's not the reality.

 

So countries with subsidized journalism have proven to have high quality unbiased reporting?

 

Even if it worked somewhere else, what makes you think that the trail of money in this country wouldn't ruin it? It's your argument that "for profit" journalism is bad. Just because the money comes from taxpayers the news woud now be good?

[DC Tom]

No, I'm pretty sure LA was referring to GG's claim that journalism is alive and well in this country.

 

No ****, buckwheat. It was a cynical commentary on your decided lack of contribution to the discussion you started.

[The Big Cat]

No ****, buckwheat. It was a cynical commentary on your decided lack of contribution to the discussion you started.

 

Well, I'm pulling the information from a book, not the Internet, so it makes citing facts, figures, scenarios, and rankings more difficult since folks here will DEMAND a link before any piece of information is taken seriously. I was also occupied all afternoon, and frankly haven't been able to cite all the information neccessary to keep this 1 v 8 discussion going in the 12 different directions it's already headed.

 

Research has shown overwhelmingly, that in democratized countries, journalism subsidies do not equal a suffocation of press freedom. If I could pull up those numbers, I would have hours ago, I'm looking. But people here keep equating government subsidies with government run news as if I were lying, or for some reason making this stuff up.

 

To say that journalism in this country remains strong is !@#$ing ridiculous, when already we rank 21st in freedom of the press. It's also ridiculous given how many journalists are out of work from a LABOR-INTENSIVE industry. So, the fact that I have to find facts and data to support a claim (privatized journalims in America is dead/dying) that I thought was about as common sense as "the grass is green," has forced this discussion to build from the ground up.

[IDBillzFan]

Well, I'm pulling the information from a book, not the Internet, so it makes citing facts, figures, scenarios, and rankings more difficult since folks here will DEMAND a link before any piece of information is taken seriously.

Believe me, the information is not what we have a hard time taking seriously.

 

Why don't you start with telling us the name of the book from which you're collecting your thoughts?

[The Big Cat]

So countries with subsidized journalism have proven to have high quality unbiased reporting?

 

Even if it worked somewhere else, what makes you think that the trail of money in this country wouldn't ruin it? It's your argument that "for profit" journalism is bad. Just because the money comes from taxpayers the news woud now be good?

 

For-profit news is bad. It's very, very bad. And that's just in terms of journalistic quality.

 

But it's also proven to be unable to sustain the labor needed to even cover basic beats (i.e. government agencies and state/local houses). Government subsidies don't guarntee quality reporting, but any reporting is better than the no-reporing which is happening now.

 

The claim that government subsidies will entail limited coverage, or manipulated coverage of government affairs is false. But without them, the for-profit media has demonstrated a disinterest in even covering local and state governments in the first place.

[The Big Cat]

Believe me, the information is not what we have a hard time taking seriously.

 

Why don't you start with telling us the name of the book from which you're collecting your thoughts?

 

The Death and Life of American Journalism.

 

Full disclosure: it's written by two very progressive fellows. And I don't neccessarily agree with all their suggestions. But their research on journalism, the state of journalism, and how it functions elsewhere isn't up for debate, and I don't think the non-profitability of hard-news is up for debate either, nor is its importance to a functioning democracy.

 

The real question is, as it has been since the OP, since hard-news is both unprofitable and fundamental to our society, how do we prop it back up? Or will you argue anything unprofitable is not valuable to society?

[GG]

Well, I'm pulling the information from a book, not the Internet, so it makes citing facts, figures, scenarios, and rankings more difficult since folks here will DEMAND a link before any piece of information is taken seriously. I was also occupied all afternoon, and frankly haven't been able to cite all the information neccessary to keep this 1 v 8 discussion going in the 12 different directions it's already headed.

 

Research has shown overwhelmingly, that in democratized countries, journalism subsidies do not equal a suffocation of press freedom. If I could pull up those numbers, I would have hours ago, I'm looking. But people here keep equating government subsidies with government run news as if I were lying, or for some reason making this stuff up.

 

To say that journalism in this country remains strong is !@#$ing ridiculous, when already we rank 21st in freedom of the press. It's also ridiculous given how many journalists are out of work from a LABOR-INTENSIVE industry. So, the fact that I have to find facts and data to support a claim (privatized journalims in America is dead/dying) that I thought was about as common sense as "the grass is green," has forced this discussion to build from the ground up.

 

So the only thing you've said in your brilliant critique of a privately funded model of delivering journalism is that a lot of journalists are out of work in the middle of the biggest economic downturn in generations, while the news delivery business is being turned upside down by technology.

 

Yet, despite all that no one would argue that there's a shortgage of good news.

[The Big Cat]

So the only thing you've said in your brilliant critique of a privately funded model of delivering journalism is that a lot of journalists are out of work in the middle of the biggest economic downturn in generations, while the news delivery business is being turned upside down by technology.

 

Yet, despite all that no one would argue that there's a shortgage of good news.

 

There's a shortage of good news because there's nobody getting paid to report it.

 

The dwindling of reporters has been happening since before the economic downturn, the downturn alone is NOT responsible for reporters losing their jobs (at least not entirely).

 

If you want to say that technology has changed journalism, you're right. Now people get compensated for page views. Do you know what generates page views? Sex, sports, and celebrities. How is that contributing to the fourth estate?

[DC Tom]

So, the fact that I have to find facts and data to support a claim (privatized journalims in America is dead/dying) that I thought was about as common sense as "the grass is green," has forced this discussion to build from the ground up.

 

And that was your first mistake - not thinking "privatized journalism" in America is dead, but not defining it to begin with. One could easily argue that "journalism" is not only alive and well but thriving, given the proliferation of incredible amounts of information through various new outlets the past 20 years. Admittedly, much of it is crappy journalism...but you weren't talking about quality, were you?

 

You were talking about "privatized journalism", which as far as I can make out means "traditional" outlets. Which means your argument isn't that "journalism" should be subsidized to be maintained, but that traditional outlets should be subsidized to compete with non-traditional outlets...

 

...and argue that should be done "for the public good". Read your original post. You start out with "Journalism failed as a private venture. It is not profitable, hasn't been for 30 years," from which you end up at "Journalism as a public good, and heavily subsidized by the government." Now think about that for a minute. Did you really just imply that journalism needs to be subsidized to be profitable, for the public good? Does that make any sense whatsoever?

 

Or did you just - again - half-ass your way through making statements that don't really represent what you were trying to say? You make a bald statement - journalism is failing because it's unprofitable, so it should be subsidized for the public good - without bothering to define in any way "journalism" (by which you apparently mean print journalism) or "failing" (by which you apparently mean "not making money") or "public good" (by which you apparently do NOT mean "turning a profit")...and you wonder why people not only disagree with you but think you're an idiot? You can't even state your own position coherently.

 

So why don't you take a step back, think about what you REALLY want to say for a few minutes (do you want to discuss newspapers or all journalism? Profitability or accurate and timely information flow?), write THAT up, and ask us to discuss it.

 

Or, you can just pretend you didn't butcher your first post beyond anything rational or comprehensible, and dig yourself to China. Yeah, on second thought, go with that plan. Stick with your strengths.