Journalism is a Public Good

[The Big Cat]

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.

 

LinK

 

I'll say it again, but differently, hopefully more clearly:

 

Journalism and freedom of the press are essential to democracy. The US once led the world in demonstrating its commitment to the press. Commercial journalism is folding rapidly, at a soon-to-be extinct rate. Without the commercial press, better yet, without paid journalists, there can be no fourth estate. Subsidies are a solution. Can you think of another?

 

Now here's my online impersonation of you:

 

But that's now what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's now what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's now what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's now what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's now what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's now what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's now what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's now what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's now what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said.

[IDBillzFan]

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.

First of all, few things get tiresome faster than this liberal belief that anything is better than nothing. Generally speaking, that's a good rule only for the arrogant or lazy.

 

Next, if your position is that journalism is dead because the big newspapers are folding like lawn chairs, you should understand that is not because print journalism is not profitable. There's a frozen yogurt place near my house that just went out of business. It replaced a Dairy Queen that, regrettably, went out of business. Is all ice cream and frozen yogurt now dead because it wasn't profitable? Print journalism is dying because technology kicked the crap out of it, not because it couldn't turn a profit. And it couldn't turn a profit because technology won.

 

And to that end, I challenge you to show me hard news that isn't being reported on, as you stated above. What big story is being missed by everyone? Pick a story. Pick a city. Pick a state, or a country or a continent. What in the hell do you think is NOT being reported on?

 

In the meantime, do yourself a favor; read a book, give is some thought, come up with some of your own ideas, and when you do, have something to support those ideas instead of just making a blanket statement that you're simply too busy to back up in the first place.

[Alaska Darin]

To say that journalism in this country remains strong is !@#$ing ridiculous, when already we rank 21st in freedom of the press.

Is that from the AP or the Coach's poll?

 

[DC Tom]

LinK

 

I'll say it again, but differently, hopefully more clearly:

 

Journalism and freedom of the press are essential to democracy. The US once led the world in demonstrating its commitment to the press. Commercial journalism is folding rapidly, at a soon-to-be extinct rate. Without the commercial press, better yet, without paid journalists, there can be no fourth estate. Subsidies are a solution. Can you think of another?

 

And I'll say it again, hopefully more clearly: what do you mean by "journalism" and "folding rapidly" and "public good"?

[Magox]

Hold on a second, is someone advocating that government subsidized journalism would be a more ideal outlet to read news from?

[keepthefaith]

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?

 

Sounds to me like the writers of your book are simply looking for a new revenue source.

 

So, if we acted on your idea here, how would it be funded and would independent for profit journalism sill be allowed or would that be outlawed? You mentioned a $30 billion industry in an earlier post so should we simply put another $30 billion on the backs of the taxpayers so that we can all enjoy this new form of high quality journalism?

[meazza]

Hold on a second, is someone advocating that government subsidized journalism would be the more ideal outlet for us to read our news from?

 

As I said before, if you want to see a "successful model" just look up Silvio Berlusconi. Shows you exactly what a government subsidized (sp?) news source can give you. All the news outlets are owned by him, good luck finding something dishonest ever written about him though.

 

How many journalists would write about how their boss is a liar?

[Magox]

As I said before, if you want to see a "successful model" just look up Silvio Berlusconi. Shows you exactly what a government subsidized (sp?) news source can give you. All the news outlets are owned by him, good luck finding something dishonest ever written about him though.

 

How many journalists would write about how their boss is a liar?

I think that is a great example. Same goes for Venezuela or any socialist/communist government for that matter. It's got propaganda written all over it.

[GG]

LinK

 

I'll say it again, but differently, hopefully more clearly:

 

Journalism and freedom of the press are essential to democracy. The US once led the world in demonstrating its commitment to the press. Commercial journalism is folding rapidly, at a soon-to-be extinct rate. Without the commercial press, better yet, without paid journalists, there can be no fourth estate. Subsidies are a solution. Can you think of another?

 

Now here's my online impersonation of you:

 

But that's now what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's now what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's now what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's now what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's now what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's now what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's now what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's now what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's now what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said.

 

So let me recap. You make an asinine blanket statement devoid of content. People make fun of it. You continue in vain. Tom helps you out by trying to put context to whatever you were trying to say. You respond with blah blah blah.

 

That pretty much summarizes it.

 

It could also explain why you bemoan the loss of journalism. There are very few expert practitioners of crayon speak. And that guy seems to have been on vacation on Mt Sinai seeking the 11th commandment.

[Delete This Account]

Journalism financed by the government is propaganda.

not entirely true. the CBC is financed by the government in Canada, and i regard it as a great source for news.

not sure if the BBC is similar. PBS, though, does gain some federal subsidies, and i regard that as one of the most unbiased and cogent sources of news here. Comedy Central might rank 2nd.

 

jw

[GG]

not entirely true. the CBC is financed by the government in Canada, and i regard it as a great source for news.

not sure if the BBC is similar. PBS, though, does gain some federal subsidies, and i regard that as one of the most unbiased and cogent sources of news here. Comedy Central might rank 2nd.

 

jw

 

The Beeb is financed by a tax every Briton has to pay on television sets.

 

But the point is that while you may enjoy the news delivered by the publicly financed sources, they're no better than the ones delivered by evil profiteering overlords.

 

Besides, junior is conflating journalism with the state of newspapers, and I'd be willing to wager that junior hasn't paid a nickel for print journalism in his life.

[Nanker]

Come on, give the kid a break. He obviously wants a government job that will pay his way around the country/world so he can chronicle his personal point of view to the edification of the masses that will clamor to watch/read his every word. Of course, if the masses don't watch of their own volition, the plan will be to enforce mandatory reading/viewing of the state sponsored journals and programs - or pay a heavy tax/fine. On the other hand, if nobody reads/watches it's not a loss, as he'll have his government job which will pay handsomely no doubt not to mention the all expenses paid junketing about the planet.

 

Ahhhh! Life is good when the government intervenes between the intelligentsia and the unwashed masses who are so desperately stupid that they don't even know enough to know that they don't know anything worthwhile.

[Lori]

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.

You lost me with your very first line.

 

If journalism hasn't been profitable for 30 years, then why did Gannett, McClatchy, CNHI and the rest spend most of that period buying newspapers?

[murra]

You lost me with your very first line.

 

If journalism hasn't been profitable for 30 years, then why did Gannett, McClatchy, CNHI and the rest spend most of that period buying newspapers?

 

Betamax

The DeLorean

Trent Edwards, and

Journalism.

[/dev/null]

Hold on a second, is someone advocating that government subsidized journalism would be a more ideal outlet to read news from?

But only when a Democrat is in the White House otherwise it would be grossly unconstitutional

[Delete This Account]

But the point is that while you may enjoy the news delivered by the publicly financed sources, they're no better than the ones delivered by evil profiteering overlords.

with all due respect, i don't find the for-profit news media as evil, nor do i find the publicly financed networks such as the CBC and BBC as perfect or anywhere near that. what i do find to be interesting is the populous divide that occurs between the two come, say, TV sweeps months, and the sudden rise of sexy and exotic stories in a bid to grab audience share.

 

now, of course, that happens mostly at the local level, where television stations have long fallen off any path ever laid out by Ed Murrow and Co.

 

what's curious to me, is that the few times i find myself switching on the national news, more often than not its CBC, BBC or even PBS. i find their breath of reporting to be deeper and more defined, as opposed to the half-hour (well, not even, given commercial break) the major networks provide (and i include CTV in that, since we get that in Buffalo).

 

as for what counts as cable news these days, i find that mostly unwatchable because that's all spiraled into opinion and chatter and tweets and polls.

 

jw

[The Big Cat]

You lost me with your very first line.

 

If journalism hasn't been profitable for 30 years, then why did Gannett, McClatchy, CNHI and the rest spend most of that period buying newspapers?

 

Says the poster who's spent the last year lamenting the Rocky Mountain News' demise with her avatar.

 

How did those investments pan out?

[Lori]

Says the poster who's spent the last year lamenting the Rocky Mountain News' demise with her avatar.

 

How did those investments pan out?

Once Craigslist destroyed classified-ad sales and the economic downturn did the same for display ads and inserts, not so good. But that wasn't 30 years ago. In fact, 20-percent profit margins were more or less the industry standard well into this decade: http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2005/narrat...t=4&media=2

 

I suppose I could get into the intricacies of the JOA between the Rocky and the Denver Post (d.b.a. the Denver Newspaper Agency), and why Scripps decided to leave the market even though they were in better financial shape than MediaNews Group's Post, which almost drove the DNA into bankruptcy. (MediaNews CEO Dean Singleton is worth an entire chapter by himself -- and deserving of his own circle of Hades, according to most of the MNG people I know.)

 

I could go deeper into the past, to when Scripps diverted profits from the newspaper division to build up its cable network properties (including The Food Network and HGTV) instead of reinvesting in its main product, then abandoned print at the first sign of trouble.

 

But I'm not all that interested in debating with someone whose knowledge of the industry comes from the pages of a single book.

 

So, enjoy.

[GG]

with all due respect, i don't find the for-profit news media as evil, nor do i find the publicly financed networks such as the CBC and BBC as perfect or anywhere near that. what i do find to be interesting is the populous divide that occurs between the two come, say, TV sweeps months, and the sudden rise of sexy and exotic stories in a bid to grab audience share.

 

now, of course, that happens mostly at the local level, where television stations have long fallen off any path ever laid out by Ed Murrow and Co.

 

what's curious to me, is that the few times i find myself switching on the national news, more often than not its CBC, BBC or even PBS. i find their breath of reporting to be deeper and more defined, as opposed to the half-hour (well, not even, given commercial break) the major networks provide (and i include CTV in that, since we get that in Buffalo).

 

as for what counts as cable news these days, i find that mostly unwatchable because that's all spiraled into opinion and chatter and tweets and polls.

 

jw

 

PBS has done a great job of segmenting its news to a higher brow audience, as does NPR and the other sources you mention. On the other hand, Bloomberg & CNBC produce very interesting long-form newspieces too. Ever since Mr Turner gave us 24-hour news, the industry has changed. I don't care to side with elitists who claim that it's changed for the worst, because the quality is still there - just takes an inquisitive navigation of the remote control to find it.

[The Big Cat]

But I'm not all that interested in debating with someone whose knowledge of the industry comes from the pages of a single book.

 

So, enjoy.

 

And why would you be?

 

I'm not informed by actual research or anything.