Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama *sigh* may bail out the newspapers next.

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


The bill referenced in the article was submitted in March. That's when this article was posted as well.

A few highlights:


But first, the idea must overcome skepticism from the very newspapers that stand to benefit. Critics say endowments also could beholden newspapers to their large donors, and giving newspapers tax-exempt status could restrict them from endorsing candidates and running editorials on pending legislation.

On a more practical level, skeptics question whether the millions and millions of dollars needed to create such endowments could be raised during the worst recession in decades.



An endowment might not help preserve a newspaper's printed edition, but could save core, expensive functions such as investigative reporting and foreign correspondents as newspapers transition to the Internet, said Steven Coll, former managing editor of The Washington Post and now president of the New America Foundation think tank.



Consider the St. Petersburg Times, which has no endowment but is owned by a nonprofit group, Poynter. The newspaper has had to trim newsroom staff to about 300, down from 430 at the end of the 1990s. Another Poynter unit, Congressional Quarterly Inc., is up for sale.

Swensen, who declined to comment beyond his column in the Times, estimates a large newspaper such as the Times would need a $5 billion endowment, assuming a 5 percent annual payout from the fund, to support annual costs of $200 million. Smaller papers would need less.

He acknowledges that only a handful of foundations and wealthy individuals have the money required for such endowments.


Making them tax-exempt isn't going to magically fix their revenue problems, they'll still need funding. Where does that funding come from? Tax-payer dollars or endowments. Do you honestly see many places forking up $5 billion for an endowment for a newspaper that will be prevented from lobbying for any specific candidate and possibly even unable to run op-ed's about legislation? I sure don't.


Edit: Went back to read what I'd missed while typing and reading this article, and you're right that it isn't exactly a bailout per se, but that funding is still going to have to come from somewhere. So my apologies.


[edit on 20-9-2009 by Jenna]




posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


I completely agree. This could have such far-reaching implications that it is just plain scary.

"Bread and Circuses" my friend.

What kind of 1st Ammendment issues would THAT raise?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


I do see plenty legal battles and also see political suicide for anyone who tries to a BAILOUT -

The lawsuits would stake up before anything was signed -

The tax code would have to be changed first, I agree funding would be a botch for sure.
Then again there are takes of just keeping the core of the organization intake, keeping OPS online...



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Thanks, Jenna. Seems like I'm getting more of an education just posting a thread.






posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


Charles Rangel, Tim Geitner are in charge of the IRS.

Suuuuure, they'll keep it legit.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by mental modulator
 


Charles Rangel, Tim Geitner are in charge of the IRS.

Suuuuure, they'll keep it legit.


What do you mean?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


If you had not noticed Sen. Rangel is under investigation for not claiming various properties on his taxes.

What do you suppose is the real purpose of keeping newspapers afloat? The younger generations barely read as it is and fewer and fewer people do not own or at least use a computer. Changing their status to non-profit seems pointless really.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 



Charles Rangel has been "connected" to over a million dollars "cheat" on his taxes.
link
www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Tim Geitner? You know, the guy in charge of the IRS who doesn't know Turbo-Tax?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 



I mean, I named my spleen Larry. How stupid am I? But even I can figure out my taxes. And I've got an LLC!!!



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by mental modulator
 



Charles Rangel has been "connected" to over a million dollars "cheat" on his taxes.
link
www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Tim Geitner? You know, the guy in charge of the IRS who doesn't know Turbo-Tax?


No No, I know who they are, what do you think they are going to do.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
REMINDER


Please stay on topic.....the newspaper bailout.

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by mental modulator
 



What do you suppose is the real purpose of keeping newspapers afloat? The younger generations barely read as it is and fewer and fewer people do not own or at least use a computer. Changing their status to non-profit seems pointless really.


I understand about Rangel, I don't know how he is in the mix - but OK.


I don't know - I know that Obama will not be in office for ever and I think DEM's know that - you are getting at pure political theory of motive.

If they are barely getting by, certain aspects might help, but if they are completely
1/2 down in the crap hole I agree.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by mental modulator]

[edit on 20-9-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
REMINDER


Please stay on topic.....the newspaper bailout.

Thanks.


REMINDER

it is not a bailout





 

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

[edit on 21-9-2009 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


Not Yet.

Caviet.

 

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



[edit on 21-9-2009 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by mental modulator
 


Not Yet.

Caviet.



Well we will keep our eyes posted to see if this goes sideways -

Probably will!

 

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

[edit on 21-9-2009 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by reasonable
 


If you don't know by now that it was not Bush that got us into the recession you are blind. Congress created and exacerbated the problem by overspending, no regulation on low income housing and the banks whom were dolling out loans like candy.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   
This sounds like Mark LLoyd's work..

In a follow-up essay to the CAP report entitled "Forget the Fairness Doctrine," Lloyd specifically instructs liberal activists to do the latter - use the "localism" requirement to harass conservative stations by filing complaints with the FCC. The FCC would then assess these stations fines, with the money going to (very liberal) public broadcasting.

newsbusters.org...

He also states....

In Venezuela, with Chavez really had an incredible revolution, a democratic revolution, and to begin to put in place, saying that we’re going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela, the property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled. Worked, frankly, with the folks here in the U.S. government, worked to oust him and came back had another revolution. And Chavez then started to take the media very seriously in this country.”

animal-farm.us...

Wow, this guy scares me. I do not think they will stop until they have complete control of all media. Sound familiar?

[edit on 21-9-2009 by sickofitall2012]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by sickofitall2012
 


It is all about control. It's never been about helping industry. Helping the small businesses. Unemployment keeps rising. The dollar is weakening. And attepts like this are seen as weak at best.

Until you start looking (thanks mm) at what they actually want to do. Sure, "help" out the newspapers. But by doing so, you are "helping" out the radio stations that the newspapers own.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Admittedly, I did not read through this whole thread, I only read the opening post. To me this sounds like a bribe of sorts. Think about it.

"I'll give you guys a billion dollars, but you can only print and broadcast what I say. What do you guys think?" Obama offers to the media.

"Well, why not Mr. President. I think that is a fair deal and it is good for everyone. I'm just running out to check on a custom leer jet I was thinking about purchasing for this news outlet. I believe we are on our way to a beautiful relationship." The media shakes the President's hand smiling and hurries out the door.

If that scenario has been brought up already, I apologize. Time constraints.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Wouldn't that be kind of a conflict of interest(s)?

Maybe it's more an irony that a quote techonology President would consider bailing out an entity that has become a vistim of the same quote technology.
Why?

Just another doomed business that he wants to rescue,
Seems like he is playing Whack a Mole.





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join