To be honest, I am conflicted about this. As a recovering journalist, I understand the need for a strong and independent media, especially one that focuses on local and community news. I just wish there was a better way to fund this than using taxpayer dollars. Will leave it at that.
How did Stec and Simpson vote on this bill? Given their subservient loyalty to the Stefanik fake news dog whistling I'm certain she told them how to proceed.
There is something fishy about having government sponsored news, even partially sponsored. The Front Page serves as a model for how to disseminate news and opinions digitally without involving public funds. There are many other examples around our country. The transition away from hard copy is what troubles most readers. We can adapt.
I am pleased with this bill, and I wish there could be a national version. Corporate welfare? Well, yes, in a sense, but I would rather my tax dollars go to local journalism than oil companies and factory farms, for example. Ideally, we pay taxes so our elected officials can use them to do public good, and the founding fathers thought so highly of a free press that they enshrined the right to have it in the Constitution. I would like to know what guard rails there are to keep the press truly free even though they are getting these tax breaks, because what politicians give, they can take away. And newspapers will probably never make enough money to buy a congressman the way other industries do.
It is essential, in my opinion, that we have local papers. That said, local or national, the press must not only be independent, but appears to be so as well. How do we say a paper is truly independent if it must rely on the government to exist? I believe for a democracy and its people to remain free, it is crucial that we have a press and that it is truly independent.
"Research demonstrates that a decline in local journalism leads to a decline in civic engagement, public health and safety, cost of government borrowing, a rise in extreme partisanship and mistrust, a risk to the survival of small local businesses and community organizations."
Consider also that the role of the free press is to uncover and expose lies and corruption, particularly in government. Add emphasis to the fact that a government of the people, by the people and for the people is dependent upon an informed populace capable of making the educated decisions necessary to good government.
Then consider how much that ability is impaired not only by the absence of honest and ethical journalism, but also by sources of information being purveyors of untruths and fear mongering, teachers being gagged and books being banned, and churchs being founts of hatred and hypocracy.
Some people seem concerned that news could be sponsored (that is, paid for) by sources other than the reader. Sources like public money, or the taxpayer, or the government. And, presumably, that the source of revenue would affect the objectivity of the reporting.
I'd just like to point out that news traditionally has always been paid for largely by sources other than the reader. In years past, newspapers derived the bulk of their revenue from advertisers — that is, local and national businesses. Even today, while advertising revenue has decreased, it still provides about half of newspapers' revenue.
I find it interesting that public money used to fund news outlets is a concern among some, but there's no concern about business sponsorship.
(What would Fox News be without the My Pillow guy and testosterone supplement funding? I mean, what can go wrong when the My Pillow guy is funding your news through advertising?)
Be careful what you wish for. What's to stop the far right or the far left from becoming "journalists" and being subsidized by taxpayers' naivety in an industry whose survival is based solely on the quality of it's product. NPR has more stations than any player in the national radio market and is the biggest money loser and only one subsidized with taxpayer money.
To be honest, I am conflicted about this. As a recovering journalist, I understand the need for a strong and independent media, especially one that focuses on local and community news. I just wish there was a better way to fund this than using taxpayer dollars. Will leave it at that.
How did Stec and Simpson vote on this bill? Given their subservient loyalty to the Stefanik fake news dog whistling I'm certain she told them how to proceed.
Terrible use of public money. If the public wants to spend its money on newsprint they will. This is actual corporate welfare.
The same people handing out the money will be the same people the "journalist" is supposed to stay on top of. What can possibly go wrong.
I am not surprised it passed though, just disappointed.
There is something fishy about having government sponsored news, even partially sponsored. The Front Page serves as a model for how to disseminate news and opinions digitally without involving public funds. There are many other examples around our country. The transition away from hard copy is what troubles most readers. We can adapt.
I am pleased with this bill, and I wish there could be a national version. Corporate welfare? Well, yes, in a sense, but I would rather my tax dollars go to local journalism than oil companies and factory farms, for example. Ideally, we pay taxes so our elected officials can use them to do public good, and the founding fathers thought so highly of a free press that they enshrined the right to have it in the Constitution. I would like to know what guard rails there are to keep the press truly free even though they are getting these tax breaks, because what politicians give, they can take away. And newspapers will probably never make enough money to buy a congressman the way other industries do.
It is essential, in my opinion, that we have local papers. That said, local or national, the press must not only be independent, but appears to be so as well. How do we say a paper is truly independent if it must rely on the government to exist? I believe for a democracy and its people to remain free, it is crucial that we have a press and that it is truly independent.
"Research demonstrates that a decline in local journalism leads to a decline in civic engagement, public health and safety, cost of government borrowing, a rise in extreme partisanship and mistrust, a risk to the survival of small local businesses and community organizations."
Consider also that the role of the free press is to uncover and expose lies and corruption, particularly in government. Add emphasis to the fact that a government of the people, by the people and for the people is dependent upon an informed populace capable of making the educated decisions necessary to good government.
Then consider how much that ability is impaired not only by the absence of honest and ethical journalism, but also by sources of information being purveyors of untruths and fear mongering, teachers being gagged and books being banned, and churchs being founts of hatred and hypocracy.
It is too much to trust to advertiser dollars.
Some people seem concerned that news could be sponsored (that is, paid for) by sources other than the reader. Sources like public money, or the taxpayer, or the government. And, presumably, that the source of revenue would affect the objectivity of the reporting.
I'd just like to point out that news traditionally has always been paid for largely by sources other than the reader. In years past, newspapers derived the bulk of their revenue from advertisers — that is, local and national businesses. Even today, while advertising revenue has decreased, it still provides about half of newspapers' revenue.
I find it interesting that public money used to fund news outlets is a concern among some, but there's no concern about business sponsorship.
(What would Fox News be without the My Pillow guy and testosterone supplement funding? I mean, what can go wrong when the My Pillow guy is funding your news through advertising?)
Be careful what you wish for. What's to stop the far right or the far left from becoming "journalists" and being subsidized by taxpayers' naivety in an industry whose survival is based solely on the quality of it's product. NPR has more stations than any player in the national radio market and is the biggest money loser and only one subsidized with taxpayer money.
👍
I am glad a politician has taken notice.
Elated to hear this! Bravo to those two legislators!!!
So hard working taxpayers will be on the hook for the self-inflicted wounds of a dying industry?