Should the government bail out newspapers?

[stolz25]

What started last year as something of a joke from the "tongue & check" department at Business Week, and a supposedly outlandish column by Michelle Malkin, has now become a reality: the state of Connecticut is seriously considering a rescue package for The Bristol Press. Can the nation's premier junk-bond newspaper, The New York Times, or The Chicago Tribune—already in bankruptcy court—be far behind?

I'd say they shouldn't be bailed out, but then I'd say the same thing about the banks, car companies and everyone else currently in line with their hand out.

[WickedLou9]

Nah. They don't need saving. They have the ability to redesign themselves and become online if they want. Unlike cars, print news is becoming entirely obsolete and print news has been in trouble for some time. They would be having trouble with out without the recession.

[C4Casey]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Nah. They don't need saving. They have the ability to redesign themselves and become online if they want. Unlike cars, print news is becoming entirely obsolete and print news has been in trouble for some time. They would be having trouble with out without the recession.

And it's not like newspapers are vital to our economy.

[Spideynw]

Or domestic auto manufacturers...

[Swift]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Nah. They don't need saving. They have the ability to redesign themselves and become online if they want. Unlike cars, print news is becoming entirely obsolete and print news has been in trouble for some time. They would be having trouble with out without the recession.

That and the fact that so many have gone so far left(NY Times for example) that people wouldn't even read it for FREE!

[Kytro]

I am opposed to government bailouts in almost all cases, this included.

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I am opposed to government bailouts in almost all cases, this included.

Yeah, I had expected a few of these expected, and I agree with you. I was mainly wanting to hear from people who thought the auto bailout (or bank bailout) was necessary, and see how they would explain this as different.

[Photon1001]

I don't think any of these bailouts are necessary either, although, I'm sure the lobbyists would say that they have duly paid for them.. The newspapers though should absolutely no though, with the issue of censorship. The Dem's in control now, would bailout the NY Times, but would they the NY Post? If the Repubs were in charge again, wouldn't they just as soon, bail out the Post, but not the Times? And what happens after they are bailed out, what stipulations might the congress impose upon them in exchange for the funds? We have enough censorship already.

The whole thing reminds me of this piece of information:

Originally Posted by Steal This Computer, Book 3 - What They Won't Tell You About The Media

Chapter 3: Censoring Information (We Know What's Best for You)

Censorship cannot eliminate evil, it can only kill freedom.
--UNKNOWN

DECIDING WHAT SOMEONE ELSE CAN SEE, READ, AND HEAR IS A PERPETUAL DILEMMA. Parents, for example, want the right to control what their kids may explore on the Internet, using their own ethical standards (which may be completely different from another parent's ethical standards) as a guideline. One parent may feel that children should freely explore any topic, such as homosexuality or Buddhism, in an intelligent, rational manner, while a second parent may be horrified to find a child learning anything that contradicts the parent's own beliefs, such as studying how another religion worships God. In this situation, the ultimate authority must rest with the parents, regardless of whether anyone believes they can make intelligent decisions or not.

National governments face a similar dilemma. What should a government allow its citizens to access on the Internet? Not surprisingly, many governments want to prevent their citizens from viewing any information that may contradict or criticize the government's official version of the news.

Some countries, like Saudi Arabia and China, funnel Internet access through state-owned Internet service providers, which have filters that only allow users to access government-approved websites. Prodigy filters Internet access for Chinese citizens with the blessings of the Chinese government, while Saudi Arabia relies on technology purchased from another American company, Secure Computing (Secure Computing - your trusted source for enterprise security™), to filter Internet access for its citizens.

(The irony of any company knowingly accepting money from an oppressive government to keep its citizens ignorant should not be lost on anyone. When Secure Computing's Saudi Arabian contract expires, companies from America, Germany, England, and the Netherlands plan to bid on the multimillion dollar contract, in the hopes of supplying much of the Middle East with Internet filters. Apparently the biggest problem with freedom of speech is that it's more profitable to suppress it instead.)

While many people expect that communist governments and dictatorships will readily embrace Internet censorship, they may be surprised to learn that many so-called democratic governments eagerly view censorship as a way to tackle the twin problems of pornography and terrorism (and also anti-government information) on the Internet. Under the guise of protecting children from Internet pornography, Australia has passed some of the most restrictive filtering laws in the world, holding Internet service providers responsible for filtering Internet access. Essentially, Australia deems pornography illegal when it is online, but perfectly legal to buy offline.

The problem isn't that Internet filtering blocks pornography from both adults and children, but that the Internet filters themselves are highly unreliable and totally subject to the whims of the manufacturer, which are often foreign companies. So programmers in other countries are essentially in charge of deciding what Internet sites Australian citizens can access on their computers.

Another form of censorship has been considered by the Internet Service Providers Association of India—charging a tariff on overseas Internet websites. Under this system, if a company such as eBay or MSN wanted citizens from India to access their websites, the site would first need to pay a fee to the Indian government. Any website that refused to pay this tariff would simply be blocked from India's Internet market.

One potentially disturbing trend in the United States is the consolidation of Internet service providers, especially those that offer high-speed broadband Internet access. If only a handful of cable and telephone companies control high-speed Internet access, there's the chance that they (either alone or under the coercion of the government) could filter or block access to certain websites, and thus create a form of corporate censorship that might be more threatening than any government-sponsored censorship could ever be.

Censorship cannot eliminate evil, it can only kill freedom.

--UNKNOWN
DECIDING WHAT SOMEONE ELSE CAN SEE, READ, AND HEAR IS A PERPETUAL DILEMMA. Parents, for example, want the right to control what their kids may explore on the Internet, using their own ethical standards (which may be completely different from another parent's ethical standards) as a guideline. One parent may feel that children should freely explore any topic, such as homosexuality or Buddhism, in an intelligent, rational manner, while a second parent may be horrified to find a child learning anything that contradicts the parent's own beliefs, such as studying how another religion worships God. In this situation, the ultimate authority must rest with the parents, regardless of whether anyone believes they can make intelligent decisions or not.

National governments face a similar dilemma. What should a government allow its citizens to access on the Internet? Not surprisingly, many governments want to prevent their citizens from viewing any information that may contradict or criticize the government's official version of the news.

Some countries, like Saudi Arabia and China, funnel Internet access through state-owned Internet service providers, which have filters that only allow users to access government-approved websites. Prodigy filters Internet access for Chinese citizens with the blessings of the Chinese government, while Saudi Arabia relies on technology purchased from another American company, Secure Computing (Secure Computing - your trusted source for enterprise security™), to filter Internet access for its citizens.

(The irony of any company knowingly accepting money from an oppressive government to keep its citizens ignorant should not be lost on anyone. When Secure Computing's Saudi Arabian contract expires, companies from America, Germany, England, and the Netherlands plan to bid on the multimillion dollar contract, in the hopes of supplying much of the Middle East with Internet filters. Apparently the biggest problem with freedom of speech is that it's more profitable to suppress it instead.)

While many people expect that communist governments and dictatorships will readily embrace Internet censorship, they may be surprised to learn that many so-called democratic governments eagerly view censorship as a way to tackle the twin problems of pornography and terrorism (and also anti-government information) on the Internet. Under the guise of protecting children from Internet pornography, Australia has passed some of the most restrictive filtering laws in the world, holding Internet service providers responsible for filtering Internet access. Essentially, Australia deems pornography illegal when it is online, but perfectly legal to buy offline.

The problem isn't that Internet filtering blocks pornography from both adults and children, but that the Internet filters themselves are highly unreliable and totally subject to the whims of the manufacturer, which are often foreign companies. So programmers in other countries are essentially in charge of deciding what Internet sites Australian citizens can access on their computers.

Another form of censorship has been considered by the Internet Service Providers Association of India—charging a tariff on overseas Internet websites. Under this system, if a company such as eBay or MSN wanted citizens from India to access their websites, the site would first need to pay a fee to the Indian government. Any website that refused to pay this tariff would simply be blocked from India's Internet market.

One potentially disturbing trend in the United States is the consolidation of Internet service providers, especially those that offer high-speed broadband Internet access. If only a handful of cable and telephone companies control high-speed Internet access, there's the chance that they (either alone or under the coercion of the government) could filter or block access to certain websites, and thus create a form of corporate censorship that might be more threatening than any government-sponsored censorship could ever be.

[Ezra Smack]

The insanity of it all is that there is no money for bailouts. Government does not produce anything so it is limited to only three methods to generate revenue:

Increase taxes on those who produce.

Borrow from another nation and pay it back with interest.

Inflate the money supply via the printing press.

Or a combination of the three. In all cases this will harm the economy.
No society ever taxed itself into prosparity.

[HughRuss]

Should the government bail out the USPS?