Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-24-2009, 06:17 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,789,910 times
Reputation: 4174

Advertisements

If you accept the government's money (or tax breaks in this case), you have to do more of what government tells you.

This is becoming the main characteristic of all the activity from our Congress and President for the last few months. And now it's the newspapers' turn.

It's not clear how the newspapers' problems constitute any kind of national emergency, nor how the demise of a few of them would threaten the stability of the U.S. economy. But nonetheless, Congress has decided that they, too, should be the recipients of government largesse... and just a teeny bit more government control over what they can print. First amendment? No, sorry, this is an emergency, and so we can ignore that.

This bill puts only a small restriction on them - they can no longer print political endorsements. It's just a little thing - look at all the stuff the government will still allow them to print! Who could possibly care about such a small restriction.

You don't think the government later on, say in a few years, will add just a little more restrction to the list, now do you? Like maybe, they can no longer print political opinions? Or how about a "fair and balanced" restriction: For every conservative opinion, they must also print an equally long liberal opinion. Hey, it's just a little bit more. Who could possibly complain.....

And the people who worry that there is a connection between the desire to HELP (and regulate just a little) newspapers, and the administration's desire to regulate the pay of just a few executives (for now) and seize just a few really critical companies, surely are silly and paranoid. I mean, what precedent can you point to, to a government gradually expanding its control and eventually making those restrictions serious?

Naw, we can trust our government to never do that. So, there's no need to follow silly, antiquated laws in some 200-year-old document, designed to prevent such a thing.

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

U.S. bill seeks to rescue faltering newspapers | Politics | Reuters

U.S. bill seeks to rescue faltering newspapers

Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:05pm EDT
by Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With many U.S. newspapers struggling to survive, a Democratic senator on Tuesday introduced a bill to help them by allowing newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks.

"This may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat," said Senator Benjamin Cardin.

A Cardin spokesman said the bill had yet to attract any co-sponsors, but had sparked plenty of interest within the media, which has seen plunging revenues and many journalist layoffs.

Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.
Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax exempt, and contributions to support news coverage or operations could be tax deductible.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-24-2009, 06:31 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,070,009 times
Reputation: 15038
Has little to do with the first amendment or censorship, if you are going to allow newspapers to operate in the same manner as any other 501(c3) then the ability to make overt endorsements should be curtailed. Frankly such restrictions have never hurt PBS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2009, 06:53 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,789,910 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Has little to do with the first amendment or censorship, if you are going to allow newspapers to operate in the same manner as any other 501(c3) then the ability to make overt endorsements should be curtailed. Frankly such restrictions have never hurt PBS.
I agree. That's what I pointed out, in fact. It's just a little restriction, shouldn't hurt the newspapers at all. And since it won't really hurt the newspapers, we can ignore that pesky 1st amendment's strict prohibition on such a restriction. If the newspapers aren't hurt by this one, who else matters, eh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2009, 07:04 PM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,172,024 times
Reputation: 6195
"A Cardin spokesman said the bill had yet to attract any co-sponsors, "

eh
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2009, 07:08 PM
 
Location: Blankity-blank!
11,446 posts, read 16,193,000 times
Reputation: 6963
Who cares? This is America, who reads newspapers anyway? Those elitists? The educated? Huh?
Newspapers use big words and put too many facts into stories anyway. My god, some articles go on for several columns and even have graphs with figures! We want everything simplistic so da average American kin unnerstand dat dose hoo ain't conservative just ain't no good! specielly if dey is not white. Dat's why we gots TV.
Newspapers are only part of the liberal media, so why should you worry.
C'mon now, would you worry about The New York "Slimes"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2009, 07:17 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
1,417 posts, read 2,181,953 times
Reputation: 1500
Frankly (after having worked for a newspaper for nearly 30 years) I feel political ENDORSEMENTS should never have been part of the NEWS in the first place.
The newspaper (and TV news) industry has since gotten even more revenue driven. Journalism is not what it once was.
The customer wants fires, scandals and "Ann Coulter" type opinions...and then he wants to complain that there is no "hard news" anymore.
A re-structuring of newspapers can only be a good thing, since they will not survive in their present form.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2009, 07:34 PM
 
13,186 posts, read 14,985,890 times
Reputation: 4555
If you accept the government's money (or tax breaks in this case), you have to do more of what government tells you.

So by your own reasoning...if we take away your tax breaks and other business tax breaks this would be a good thing because you wouldn't have to "do more of what the Government tells you"...LOL

Funny how these guys get can't keep their rhetoric straight......Bash Obama...or argue for tax cuts?....bash Obama or argue for tax cuts?

Bash Obama for offering tax cuts!!.......Doh!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2009, 07:52 PM
 
Location: Blankity-blank!
11,446 posts, read 16,193,000 times
Reputation: 6963
Quote:
Originally Posted by vicket View Post
Frankly (after having worked for a newspaper for nearly 30 years) I feel political ENDORSEMENTS should never have been part of the NEWS in the first place.
The newspaper (and TV news) industry has since gotten even more revenue driven. Journalism is not what it once was.
The customer wants fires, scandals and "Ann Coulter" type opinions...and then he wants to complain that there is no "hard news" anymore.
A re-structuring of newspapers can only be a good thing, since they will not survive in their present form.
In the city where I live the newspaper's only important part is the sports section. Whenever I see someone pick up a paper, they pull out sports and leave the rest. Some people check out the ad supplements, women look at fashion tips. It's rare to see someone reading the first section or even the editorial page. Summarizing important games, or player's antics, even make it to the front page.
Yes, journalism and news coverage is a thing of the past. The demand for this has plummeted over the decades.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2009, 08:08 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,644 posts, read 26,398,078 times
Reputation: 12656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
I agree. That's what I pointed out, in fact. It's just a little restriction, shouldn't hurt the newspapers at all. And since it won't really hurt the newspapers, we can ignore that pesky 1st amendment's strict prohibition on such a restriction. If the newspapers aren't hurt by this one, who else matters, eh?
See. No outrage over the Congress using the Constitution for a door mat. The Internet will be next on their list.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2009, 08:25 PM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,880,765 times
Reputation: 2519
Amazing really...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:18 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top