Sen Henry Waxman says struggling media will need government help

[Compound]

I can't wait until Obama is running the media companies (along with the car companies and banks). We're going to get some really fantastic non-biased information when this happens

I guess we should just throw that whole "freedom of the press" thing out the window....along with the rest of our old freedoms

Struggling media will need government help: US congressman

The newspaper industry is suffering "market failure" and the government will need to help preserve serious journalism essential to democracy, an influential US congressman said Wednesday.

"The newspapers my generation has taken for granted are facing a structural threat to the business model that has sustained them," said Representative Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California.

"The loss of revenue has spurred a vicious cycle with thousands of journalists losing their jobs," he told a meeting on journalism in the Internet age hosted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Waxman, who chairs the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has jurisdiction over the FTC, said the "depression in the media sector is not cyclical, it is structural."

"While this has implications for the media it also has implications for democracy," he added. "A vigorous free press and vigorous democracy have been inextricably linked.

"We cannot risk the loss of an informed public and all that means because of this market failure," he said.

Without endorsing any proposals, Waxman noted various proposed remedies, including new tax structures for publishers, providing non-profit status, changing anti-trust regulations or eliminating a law that bars owning a newspaper and a television station in the same city.

Acknowledging that talk of government support for the press raises "red flags," Waxman stressed it is not the job of Congress to "deny the evolution of media."

But "as we look at these various solutions, government's going to have to be involved in one way or the other," he warned.

"Eventually, government is going to have to be responsible to help resolve these issues and our whole society depends very much on reaching some resolution of the problem."

US newspapers are grappling with declining print advertising revenue, falling circulation and the migration of readers to free news online, while several major US publishers have declared bankruptcy.

Struggling media will need government help: US congressman

[Redwingenator]

Waxman meant to say the struggling liberal media. The unbiased media and conservative media need to just go away.

[IGGcitable]

Other industries requiring bailouts:






Adapt or die.

[Redwingenator]

Originally Posted by IGGcitable

Other industries requiring bailouts:






Adapt or die.

[TrapperGus]

In other news TB is now earning big bucks from ESPN...

[Nommad]

You really think we still have Freedom of the Press?

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Nommad

You really think we still have Freedom of the Press?

I think it could get a lot worse than it is now.

[Seth Galifianakis]

Originally Posted by Redwingenator

Waxman meant to say the struggling liberal media. The unbiased media and conservative media need to just go away.

Who are these "unbiased media" of which you speak?

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Seth Galifianakis

Who are these "unbiased media" of which you speak?

It doesn't matter. The point is that he wants to help any media that will be in the tank for his policies.

[Seth Galifianakis]

Originally Posted by Compound

It doesn't matter. The point is that he wants to help any media that will be in the tank for his policies.

I really don't see why government-subsidized media would be so much worse than the corporate-subsidized media we have today, so forgive me for not going all over this.

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Seth Galifianakis

I really don't see why government-subsidized media would be so much worse than the corporate-subsidized media we have today, so forgive me for not going all over this.

People who aren't socialists generally believe that a free press is a good thing. That the government shouldn't decide who gets what information. FYI

[Seth Galifianakis]

Originally Posted by Compound

People who aren't socialists generally believe that a free press is a good thing. That the government shouldn't decide who gets what information. FYI

God you're dense.

I'm not in favor of the government "deciding who gets what information," whatever that even means. I'm just saying having the largest corporations in the world owning every major media company does not = a "free press" either. Wake up.

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Seth Galifianakis

God you're dense.

I'm not in favor of the government "deciding who gets what information," whatever that even means. I'm just saying having the largest corporations in the world owning every major media company does not = a "free press" either. Wake up.

Large corporations are better than government running the media.

[Seth Galifianakis]

Originally Posted by Compound

Large corporations are better than government running the media.

What if I told you they're also running the government that you hate so much?

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Seth Galifianakis

What if I told you they're also running the government that you hate so much?

I don't hate the government. I'm simply cognizant of the fact that the bigger, more powerful the government becomes the worse it is for its citizens.

As far as your comment about big business running the government, I agree they have too much influence. But that doesn't mean that giving the government even more influence and having them essentially take over the media companies is going to make things better.

[Seth Galifianakis]

Originally Posted by Compound

I don't hate the government. I'm simply cognizant of the fact that the bigger, more powerful the government becomes the worse it is for its citizens.

As far as your comment about big business running the government, I agree they have too much influence. But that doesn't mean that giving the government even more influence and having them essentially take over the media companies is going to make things better.

Try reading what I wrote instead of building strawmen.

I never said this will make things better, just that if you think this is the thing that's going to ruin big media in America, you haven't been paying attention. It's been broken for a long, long time.

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Seth Galifianakis

Try reading what I wrote instead of building strawmen.

I never said this will make things better, just that if you think this is the thing that's going to ruin big media in America, you haven't been paying attention. It's been broken for a long, long time.

Kind of scary that you think I'm worried about the media companies

[Seth Galifianakis]

Originally Posted by Compound

Kind of scary that you think I'm worried about the media companies

What the hell are you talking about?

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Seth Galifianakis

What the hell are you talking about?

I don't care about the media companies. I care about the government having control over the media companies.

Whether you agree with Fox news or not....or whether you agree with CNN, ABC, etc or not....don't you think it's kind of nice that we can get news from sources that have conflicted points of view? Once the government gives money to a media outlet, they will be totally unable to be non biased in their reporting. Not that they are unbiased now....but government run media would be a lot worse.

[Rocinante]

The government already funds news media. It's called NPR and PBS and it's the closest thing to unbiased news you will find on planet earth in the 21st century.

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Rocinante

The government already funds news media. It's called NPR and PBS and it's the closest thing to unbiased news you will find on planet earth in the 21st century.

Great, lets have the government run car companies, banks, and news media. Hell, let's just call ourselves the USSR, because that worked

[Seth Galifianakis]

Originally Posted by Compound

I don't care about the media companies. I care about the government having control over the media companies.

Whether you agree with Fox news or not....or whether you agree with CNN, ABC, etc or not....don't you think it's kind of nice that we can get news from sources that have conflicted points of view? Once the government gives money to a media outlet, they will be totally unable to be non biased in their reporting. Not that they are unbiased now....but government run media would be a lot worse.

That's exactly what I was talking about, which apparently went right over your head - we haven't had any real choice in media in my lifetime. It's all different flavors of the same big business agenda.

You say government-controlled media would be a lot worse than what we have now, but you provide no support whatsoever for that claim. I don't see it being a whole lot different from the corporate-controlled media we have today. At least if the government had a controlling share in the media people would realize that they're getting a ridiculously skewed perspective, unlike now, when most people are completely oblivious of that.

[Gotham_Spartan]

Most of you seem not to have read past the headline.

"Without endorsing any proposals, Waxman noted various proposed remedies, including new tax structures for publishers, providing non-profit status, changing anti-trust regulations or eliminating a law that bars owning a newspaper and a television station in the same city."

These actually sound pretty Republican in nature, and none would lead to any more government influence over content. Indeed, the last would actually increase the corporate influence and control.

Look at the actual factsly yours,

[Rocinante]

Originally Posted by Compound

Great, lets have the government run car companies, banks, and news media. Hell, let's just call ourselves the USSR, because that worked

You go from A-Z and skip right over bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwx and y don't you?

Originally Posted by Gotham_Spartan

Most of you seem not to have read past the headline.

"Without endorsing any proposals, Waxman noted various proposed remedies, including new tax structures for publishers, providing non-profit status, changing anti-trust regulations or eliminating a law that bars owning a newspaper and a television station in the same city."

These actually sound pretty Republican in nature, and none would lead to any more government influence over content. Indeed, the last would actually increase the corporate influence and control.

Look at the actual factsly yours,

Sorry, I can't let facts stop me from pointing out Compound W's idiocy.

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Gotham_Spartan

Most of you seem not to have read past the headline.

"Without endorsing any proposals, Waxman noted various proposed remedies, including new tax structures for publishers, providing non-profit status, changing anti-trust regulations or eliminating a law that bars owning a newspaper and a television station in the same city."

These actually sound pretty Republican in nature, and none would lead to any more government influence over content. Indeed, the last would actually increase the corporate influence and control.

Look at the actual factsly yours,

You don't realize how government works, do you? They put the system in place first....then they change it later to do whatever they choose.