| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman |
| 2009-12-03 |
| A top Democratic lawmaker predicted on Wednesday that the government will be involved in shaping the future for struggling U.S. media organizations. I fear that's gonna be so. It's the worst of all possible ideas, which is why I'm sure the current Congress will go for it. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, saying quality journalism was essential to U.S. democracy, said eventually government would have to help resolve the problems caused by a failing business model. Sounds like we're going to end up with a Ministry of Information. Maybe even a Ministry of Truth. Waxman, other U.S. lawmakers and regulators are looking into various options to help a newspaper industry hurt by the shift in advertising revenues to online platforms. Maybe they could pool their resources with the buggy whip manufacturers. Tweaks to the tax code to allow newspapers to spread losses over a greater number of years, providing a nonprofit structure to allow for public and foundation funding, and changes to antitrust laws are being considered by lawmakers and policymakers. "Eventually government is going to have to be responsible to help and resolve these issues," Waxman told a conference hosted by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission on the future of journalism. The next generation will likely see journalism restricted to those holding a license. Free Press, a public interest group, said the search for solutions to the crisis in journalism should be premised on the idea that news-gathering is a public service, not a commodity. Government and prostitutes provide services. Businesses sell a product. When the product has been adulterated it's harder to sell. When new technology comes along the business either has to adapt, die, become a government service, or sell it on street corners. Waxman's "indication that government has a role to play is both bold and soberly sensible," said Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott on the sidelines of the FTC conference. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Government muckulation in the press by definition abridges the free exercise thereof. As soon as the word "fairness" dribbles from between a politicians lips you know he's talking about his side getting pumped up at the expense of the other side. National Public Radio was a government enterprise and it's less "fair" in its treatment of issues than even such bastions of political hackery as the New York Times. Once the government runs an organization it's going to set the policy. Count on it. At the Federal Communications Commission, officials are embarking on a quadrennial review of the state of U.S. media. The study, which is mandated by Congress, seeks to determine whether current rules should be changed to allow for a more vibrant media industry serving a diverse audience. The most "vibrant" media industry we've got going is the internet. There's no government involvement as yet in the wonderful world of blogging. As advertising sales shrink and more people get information and entertainment online, media companies want more freedom to merge and own multiple outlets in particular locations. I consider most mergers admissions of failure. Organizations gain the benefit of economies of scale at the expense of flexibility and quickness of reaction. But small industries don't produce the dollar flow big ones do, so size is considered an advantage. Sentiment also is growing that the Internet and other technological advances have rendered media regulation debates obsolete, industry observers say. The Stanley Steamer rendered the buggy whip obsolete, too... The FCC rules have come up for review before, but the stakes are higher now, with broadcasters and publishers like Tribune Co in bankruptcy. U.S. media ownership rules generally prohibit a company from owning a television broadcaster and a newspaper in the same market but exemptions have been granted over the years. That's already an obsolete rule. A television station and a newspaper owned by the same company will still in most cases be a losing proposition. Waxman was wary of such cross-media ownership structures. "Even greater consolidation of the business has not helped," Waxman said. What's worked has been the eruption of thousands of shoe-string operations that are more interested in news than in their usually non-existent bottom lines. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #3 It's classical post-modern liberalism. You don't use your own money to operate 'worthwhile' projects, you use other people's money to run them even though the 'people' don't believe it is 'worthwhile' enough to justify expending the product of their labor and skills. We're not talking the traditional functions of a American government. This is so Euro. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-12-03 07:18 |
| #2 So this past election was a media freebie? A taste of the type of personal service media whores can provide, for the right fee. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-12-03 06:58 |
| #1 "Government and prostitutes provide services. Businesses sell a product. When the product has been adulterated it's harder to sell. When new technology comes along the business either has to adapt, die, become a government service, or sell its ass on street corners." That aphorism is pure gold. I will take a dozen. |
| Posted by: Angleton9 2009-12-03 05:26 |