stuckincincy Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 From the editorial board of the Cincinnati Enquirer: Press can't be saved with restrictions Cincinnati Enquirer 05/06/09 "We appreciate the concerns of certain senators over the future of the newspaper industry, but restrictions they propose pose a far greater threat to the free press than any economic decline. Advertisement Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., has authored a bill that would allow newspapers to claim tax-exempt status, similar to public broadcasting, churches, hospitals and schools. The catch: newspapers would no longer be able to make political endorsements. With all due respect to Sen. Cardin, what he proposes is nothing short of a muzzle. The text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is short and direct: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."... Full article: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2009050...th+restrictions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 With all due respect to Sen. Cardin, what he proposes is nothing short of a muzzle. Nah, it's worse than a muzzle. It has all of the downside - establishing the appearance of a muzzle in the press - without the upside of it actually working. But you are wrong about it being unconstitutional - we already do this now. When an organization chooses to incorporate in various forms, it is voluntarily submitting to the restrictions present in those codes. Churches cannot receive tax-free status if they endorse politicians. Neither can public television. So all Cardin's bill appears to do is offer a newspaper the opportunity enjoyed by certain non-profit niches to be eligible for tax-exempt status. They do not have to take it - they can continue to express their political views as a traditional media source. Nevertheless it is a terrible idea. The political endorsement of a newspaper influences no-one. The slant of the coverage is what influences. And that slant will continue to exist, as it does in public television, regardless of whether they are allowed to overtly endorse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 From the editorial board of the Cincinnati Enquirer: Press can't be saved with restrictions Cincinnati Enquirer 05/06/09 "We appreciate the concerns of certain senators over the future of the newspaper industry, but restrictions they propose pose a far greater threat to the free press than any economic decline. Advertisement Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., has authored a bill that would allow newspapers to claim tax-exempt status, similar to public broadcasting, churches, hospitals and schools. The catch: newspapers would no longer be able to make political endorsements. With all due respect to Sen. Cardin, what he proposes is nothing short of a muzzle. The text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is short and direct: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."... Full article: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2009050...th+restrictions The proposal isn't a law abridging freedom of the press, it's a law allowing newspapers to choose to trade their freedom for tax-exempt status. The Constitution guarantees the government won't restrict freedom of the press; it does NOT guarantee that the press can't restrict their own freedom. If the Enquirer's so worried about freedom of the press being abridged by tax-exempt status, then they shouldn't claim the tax-exempt status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 8, 2009 Author Share Posted May 8, 2009 The proposal isn't a law abridging freedom of the press, it's a law allowing newspapers to choose to trade their freedom for tax-exempt status. The Constitution guarantees the government won't restrict freedom of the press; it does NOT guarantee that the press can't restrict their own freedom. If the Enquirer's so worried about freedom of the press being abridged by tax-exempt status, then they shouldn't claim the tax-exempt status. The very idea that a member of a legislature should even broach such is disturbing - at least to me. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Idiotic proposal anyway, because newspapers don't generate profits now, and won't until they fully restructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Newspapers are dinosauers run by dead dinosauers. Case in point: the Seattle PI finally folds, turning over all its current subs to the Seattle Times. We're now a one-newspaper town. Flush with this huge increase in subscribers and associated $$$, the Seattle Times decides to crappify its publication by cutting down on content. The features are now adverts. To my total and complete disgust, there are more letters in the SPORTS pages than in the 1/2 page Opinion section. When my "subscription" expires I will not review. I'll pay 3x to get a real paper delivered. I read quite a bit of news online, of course, but I enjoy having a newspaper to go with my morning coffee. It's a habit I will not willingly give up, but the papers themselves will probably force me to do just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Newspapers are dinosauers run by dead dinosauers. Case in point: the Seattle PI finally folds, turning over all its current subs to the Seattle Times. We're now a one-newspaper town. Flush with this huge increase in subscribers and associated $$$, the Seattle Times decides to crappify its publication by cutting down on content. The features are now adverts. To my total and complete disgust, there are more letters in the SPORTS pages than in the 1/2 page Opinion section. When my "subscription" expires I will not review. I'll pay 3x to get a real paper delivered. I read quite a bit of news online, of course, but I enjoy having a newspaper to go with my morning coffee. It's a habit I will not willingly give up, but the papers themselves will probably force me to do just that. So you're a dinosaur too, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 So you're a dinosaur too, eh? She is truculent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 8, 2009 Author Share Posted May 8, 2009 In my feeble mind, even the slightest sniff of government influence on the free press under any circumstance is strongly repugnant to the Constitution and to the 1st Amendment. And folks are arguing about the details of the survival of newspapers... How chilling... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastback Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Newspapers are dinosauers run by dead dinosauers. Case in point: the Seattle PI finally folds, turning over all its current subs to the Seattle Times. We're now a one-newspaper town. Flush with this huge increase in subscribers and associated $$$, the Seattle Times decides to crappify its publication by cutting down on content. The features are now adverts. To my total and complete disgust, there are more letters in the SPORTS pages than in the 1/2 page Opinion section. When my "subscription" expires I will not review. I'll pay 3x to get a real paper delivered. I read quite a bit of news online, of course, but I enjoy having a newspaper to go with my morning coffee. It's a habit I will not willingly give up, but the papers themselves will probably force me to do just that. Read WSJ...you might actually learn something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 In my feeble mind, even the slightest sniff of government influence on the free press under any circumstance is strongly repugnant to the Constitution and to the 1st Amendment. And folks are arguing about the details of the survival of newspapers... How chilling... If the government has to bail out the newspapers, they're not a free press anyway. What, precisely, is it that bothers you in your original post, the idea that the government might bail out the press, or that they might put conditions on a bail out? Again, I have no problem with the conditions. That just means that those that accept the conditions aren't a free press. If any newspaper wilfully chooses to become a de facto arm of the US government...so what? But the idea that the government should bail out newspapers to begin with? Even unconditionally, that's repulsive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 So you're a dinosaur too, eh? She is truculent! A truculentasaurus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Read WSJ...you might actually learn something. Cancelled that. Don't care much about financial news. Boring. New York Times will do just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 New York Times will do just fine. blzrul = the grey lady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Cancelled that. Don't care much about financial news. Boring. New York Times will do just fine. Won't have much time left for that. Besides they don't have the comics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts