Obama *sigh* may bail out the newspapers next.

Originally posted by Alxandro
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.

That's why I brought up the VCR analogy. Could extend it to the Edsel, the pet rock, and mood rings.

Government bailed out newspapers = Government controlled newspapers.

Meh, there's still a lot of people who are nostalgic for the old News Paper medium as both a cultural icon and as a condensed source of local news relevant to their county or city. The internet is, as of yet, not nearly as user friendly or as all-in-one news source for local information. Not to mention there's just something visceral about the experience we connect with. The texture and scent of paper, the crackling as the pages turn. Even if it's just on occasion, many people still like to sit down with a good old fashioned news paper and a cup of coffee.

It's like the door knob. I bet by now most folk in 60's would have thought automatic sliding doors would have replaced the old-fashioned swinging door. While there are, I'm sure, numerous economic, safety, energy, and architectural reasons why they haven't invaded our homes. But part of it... I think... is also because we like the way they can help us emote. The touch of the doorknob after a long trip is a comforting welcome, and an angry slam can leave an impression on others while letting off a bit of steam.

But newspapers aren't cheap to produce and distribute, and they cannot sustain their current market if their prior readers continually turn to the internet. They aren't supported by subscription fees, but by advertisers who aren't going to pay for views they aren't getting. So I do expect to see, even in a good economy, the importance of newspapers continue to dwindle and outlets continue to close or go online only.


There will always be a few around to satisfy that tactile demand for a Sunday paper leafing through your fingers, but how exactly the business model will be forced to change in order to stay sustainable I couldn't say.


However, concerning the quote in the op:

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

To a fair degree, this is largely true. Whereas industry news reporters had limited specialization options for target audiences as well as circulation limitations, news as reported by industry news tends to be fact checked better, more balanced in views (to a fault), and more thoroughly researched. A great deal of effort is made to present articles which appeal to the largest spectrum of readers in their market for increased sales potential. As a result, it's also often bland, wishy-washy, speculative, and distanced from the event being reported.

The blogosphere is a different beast altogether. Reporters are amateurs in the field working for free or dirt cheap, their pervasive - everywhere there's the internet and news - there's an in-the-field blog reporter ready to publish their story. And because they are so cheap to operate and so pervasive, they have the flexibility to specialize to whatever tastes might paint the human pallet. Many bloggers don't even report stories themselves, but pick up and distribute a story from other bloggers on their own website, with their own commentary and interpretation tacked on. Because of the amateur experience of the reporter, the reporting for a specific audience's taste, and the speed at which blog reports propagate across the internet once published - errors, speculations, misconceptions, slanted views, and other fluff-trash news gets spread around the globe with absolutely no means of formal retraction, error correction, or regard for opposing views.

To switch gears back to the traditional media, for a moment. Because the larger Media/Print news industries are, as mentioned, targeting a wider audience - viewers/readers of these outlets tend to get a broader and more objective reporting, increasing the likelihood that they will be exposed to an opposing view which may provide context to their understanding. IIRC, a few studies have shown that traditional media alone produces better informed audiences than the internet/bloggers do as a sole source of information. This is, again, because of the low cost of blogs allowing for greater specialization - and a stronger potential for self-affirming bias without a sufficiently represented counter-viewpoint to consider. The best informed participants in the study got their news from a mixture of both internet and traditional media.


However, this isn't to say that traditional media is necessarily the contrary to how the OP's quote portrays internet bloggers. In fact, traditional media is often chock full of projections, slanted reporting, spin doctoring, pandering, cheap & easy speculation, and promotion of popular/controversial topics over actual news coverage. This time, the large size of the media industries tendency to water down and homogenize their reporting in an effort garner a wider audience can actually leave their reader/viewer far less informed. For instance, the numerous commentaries in papers and debates on pundit forums over ID vs. Evolution a few years back. Despite the fact that ID didn't have really anything to support it, and still doesn't, when reported - they're often regarded as being on equal ground, which they are not. Readers love a good controversy, so many times a small contention or minor complaint will be artificially trumped to provide readers with "Fair and Balanced" views of both sides... when, in fact, there may never have been a controversy or contention worth raising in the first place.

------------------------

Ultimately, if a bailout of various print publications were to manifest, I'm not certain as to what long-term benefit it would serve. I can understand the sentiment of many who may wish to preserve the time-honored American newspaper media - the only private industry explicitly given special consideration in the Constitution. However, the print media is not a back-bone industry the way the Big Three are - and their decline and failure in the market is something that can't really be helped in the long run, no matter how much money is thrown at it. With the continual development of information technology which already exists, as well as the emergence of new avenues of information transmission in the future, I see a bleak future for the print media press from here on out.

While the papers as a medium have their days numbered, professional journalism remains as relevant as ever, if not more. Having writers fired sounds good economically, but does little for public good. Give them a chance to transition to new media and otherwise apply their talent.

My question is this. When will the great Obama bail out his fellow americans?

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Chovy]

So that is how they want to start controlling media, same way they shut up churches on political issues that are a 501(c)(3) organizations. Talk about your views or support a candidate over another and lose your exemption.

www.law.cornell.edu...

(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

I vote we do away with the 20th century relic that is newspapers.

Interesting developments...

I just thought I'd post and offer this link:

MediaOwners.com

Find out what the leading US media companies own... and who owns them.

Media Owners provides essential information about the largest American media companies -- background, contacts, subsidiaries and media properties, including newspapers, magazines, TV stations and networks.

Have fun!

Yep, lets just forget about those one million some odd workers who were crazy enough to want to work in newspapers, what where they thinking? trying to enlighten people and stuff?! the audacity!

Originally posted by eMachine
find out what the leading US media companies own... and who owns them.

Have fun!

News corp is Rupert Murdoch all the way. it just so happens to be one of the more massive beasts.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by drsmooth23]

If Obama keeps this up he will end up resurrecting the old Ma Bell telephone companies and we will all go back to leasing our rotary dial phones again.

This is unbelievable. Most people only read the Sunday newspaper in print nowadays. I get my daily news online along with the majority of the population.

Let the newspapers go. A bail out will accomplish nothing but a waste of money just like the auto bailout.

Here is were a bailout should really be spent:
neighborhood butcher shops, hardware stores, bakeries, coffee shops etc. These are the businesses that could use a boost and some protection from the big box neighborhood buster stores.

Obama bailing out the newsprint media seems appropriate if you really think about it.
I mean most people buy the paper for the classified and job listings section.

reply to post by eMachine


Thanks for the additional info.






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

[edit on 21-9-2009 by DontTreadOnMe]

reply to post by drsmooth23


Obama and co. hasn't really given two hoots to the hundreds of thousands already unemployed.

9.7% and rising. . .

reply to post by jibeho


We'll just go back to. . . . .


"_________________ is too big to fail."

The company that the government will run, just fill in the blank.

reply to post by mikerussellus


OK, let me state my view here quite simply:

STOP BAILING OUT FAILING

BUSINESSES!!!

That's part of the 'Free Market System'! If the companies that own these failing newspapers can't make the necessary changes (move to the internet) then they deserve to fail. Technology changes... Either keep up and modify to meet the changes, or go the way of the dinosaurs...

Simple enough?

[edit on 21-9-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

A news story breaks at 10AM...

So by the time the newsies print it up, 18 hours have gone by, the story has gone thru several changes, and many developments have occurred.

So we are supposed to wait till tomorrow morning to get a piece of paper with news that is stale before the ink is even dry on it?

In the meantime, minute-by minute updates are being broadcast over the internet.

But Obama can't control the internet, can he?

There's a reason they call the newspapers the fifth branch of the government, and that is because they can keep the politicians accountable. Yes, I know that has been seriously eroded lately, especially when Bush and Co. paid reporters to spin their agenda favorably (see "The Seattle Times: Nation & World: U.S. paid journalist to tout law). Do you think the internet news sites will be better? You'll see for more instances of politico's paying off the blogosphere to spin stories one way or the other. So much for your "fifth branch".

Do you think that if Nixon's henchmen from Watergate had been "reported" on by some guy on the web in a blog, that anyone would have paid attention? Just as quickly detractors would have been jumping all over such a blog for being biased and conspiracy wing nuts, then it would turned into a troll-fest. End result? Nothing anywhere near as profoundly unsettling as the reporting done by the WP, which reached all facets of American life, and not just webizens.

What I find interesting about this topic is that Obama makes an off-the-cuff remark about a tax break to an industry, and immediately it gets labeled (by some guy on the web) a bailout.

Aren't most of you clamoring about the rate of taxation in this country? Here is a president talking about a tax break for a particular industry and you start screaming "bailout". Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't?