Obama *sigh* may bail out the newspapers next.

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   

The president said he is "happy to look at" bills before Congress that would give struggling news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as nonprofit businesses.

Link
thehill.com...

Are you freaking kidding me? *gods, I need a drink* Obama is "worried" about the influence that the internet has and feels that newspapers need to be helped.


"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding," he said.


You know what, people? Don't star, don't flag. Just READ. WATCH what is being done to this country. Learn. Fight.

Hope for some REAL change. . .

This is just getting stupid.


[edit on 20-9-2009 by mikerussellus]




posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Why the hell won't they consider something like this with insurance companies?? Just require that all health related insurance companies be non-profits and mandate that they publish CAFRs annually. That and a dash of tort reform would be what the doctor ordered...

As for Newspapers... let them die. The void will be filled with something new and eventually the demand for fact checking will filter out the weeds from the roses.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 

Thanks for replying.

He won't let papers die, because he needs his propoganda machine.

Just to note, notice how he made the internet out to be the bad guys?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Bush *sigh* really got us into a mess (and you still love him).


 

Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic


[edit on 20-9-2009 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Newspapers have made America what it is today. It used to be the sole form of communication. It is a timeless tradition, and to loose it would be a huge loss.

And no, the internet is not a suitable replacement, instead of indepth reporting you have a two line description. I find it lacking.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by reasonable
 


Nope. Never said it, never will.

Now stop blaming the previous administration for this one's mess.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Will be interesting to see which papers get "saved."

My money is on LA Times, NY Times.

We'll see if WSJ get's a dime.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Half of the time reporters don't check their facts.

95% Reporters spin it to meet a political or ideological agenda.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by reasonable
 


Nope. Never said it, never will.

Now stop blaming the previous administration for this one's mess.



Actually, it is noone's mess. The newspapers were dying long before either bush or obama took office. It wasn't a political move either. The internet hit them sideways and they were not prepared.

As for the news papers being part of American history, I wholeheartedly agree, but as I recall from high school jornalism class, it was rife with "yellow journalism" for many years. Even today, the only thing that tends to make journalists stay somewhat in line is the desire to keep their reputations.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding," he said.


Actually he is lying here as well. We at ATS argue, but most of the time it is civil and we do reach mutual understanding. We have facts, they are constantly challenged, but I think we do a better job here than most places in the MSM sphere.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by reasonable
 


Again, when did Bush bail out the papers?

Nevermind, misdirection.

Please stay on topic.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Yesterday, I did a search on the internet for items I had posted as my alter ego "endisnighe". Lo and behold, even the sun shines on an ass once and awhile. Right after the first bailouts there was talk in the news how MSM was having income problems. I had posted in places like YouTube and a couple of financial news spots. I had asked, whats next, newspapers and TV bailouts. I have seen here on ATS references to this very issue by several comments. I also believe this is where the new verb pravadaesque came into being-not by me but a possible bailout of the MSM.

In regards to my search of myself I have found that other sites save the YouTube comments and retransmit them. AWESOME. Breaks YouTube censoring of comments. Also, if you do a search, give me a little break, this spring and summer I was very angry and drinking WAY too much Captain.

Also, I am also a little scared that everything I have said as endisnighe is already linked to the real me and I am on EVERY list in the government. I am so fracked.


One more note, who owns these papers and Stations? You got it, Mega Corporations and TPTB. Do they really need bailouts? Or do they want us to pay for our own censorship. Quite a joke on us there.


[edit on 9/20/2009 by endisnighe]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 



Are you saying that he is lying because you think ATS is exempt? I see a lot of bs here as well.


95% of the internet is garbage. And people don't know or bother to tell the difference anymore.

Look how many people post blogticles as a story here.


[edit on 20-9-2009 by nixie_nox]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


It's interesting that you make a story out of this stating your opinion that Obama may bail out Newspapers (when he hasn't indicated anything like that). And in your story, you quote him as saying he's concerned that people's opinions will become the news...
Pretty funny. You're proving his point.

It isn't a bailout, it's a tax break. He hasn't said he'd do it, he said he's open to looking at a bill.

Silly facts! Go away! There's an agenda here to be pushed!



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


More of the Wall Street and none of the "main street".

This is nothing but a bailout to his friends in the media. They help him, he helps them.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


First, awesome thread on Fringe.

Second, papers have gone on-line. So what's the difference? They need to adapt to the times. the changes. How many shops sell "beta max" VCR's anymore?

Did they deserve a bailout?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Everyone should be allowed to fail and pay the price for that failure. Everyone should be allowed to succeed and receive the bonuses for their success. All of this bailout crap has been a boondoggle to suck out the remaining wind from the economy not put it back.

The old dying dinosaur industry is supposed to die because there is not an environment present any longer to sustain them. That is if they fail to adapt to changes in the environment.

The new younger, stronger, better adapted to the new environment are supposed to take over when the old die off. When they are kept in place by big government you end up with corporatism and corporate welfare.

It is an abomination and should be put to its end. Who ever voted for any of this bailout or stimulus should be shown the door in the next election for their stupid shortsighted panicky reactionary behavior.

I'm just saying.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by wayouttheredude]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


It's interesting that you make a story out of this stating your opinion that Obama may bail out Newspapers (when he hasn't indicated anything like that). And in your story, you quote him as saying he's concerned that people's opinions will become the news...
Pretty funny. You're proving his point.

It isn't a bailout, it's a tax break. He hasn't said he'd do it, he said he's open to looking at a bill.

Silly facts! Go away! There's an agenda here to be pushed!


Ya Mikey I agree with BH on this one -

I think you framed the article how everything Obama related seems to be framed as of recent.
IMO



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Well isn't that just peachy. Why don't we just bail out every company in the country all at once instead of just one section at a time.


Yes the newspaper is a part of our history, but so are a lot of other things. Doesn't mean we should create more money out of thin air to prop them all up.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join