Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Journalism Needs Government Help

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: Journalism Needs Government Help

#21

Post by JacobAldridge »

sliverstorm wrote: post #18
JacobAldridge wrote: post #3

I don't think this is the solution, but not because it will negatively impact the 'objectivity' of the press. The BP example is strong, and as an ex-jounro myself who's been around the newsroom, I know that for the vast majority of writers the memory of a free lunch fades by the time you need to write about it. I think this will fail in the way that all welfare-dependent industries must inevitably fail. If the busine…

Doesn't the US Postal Service get a ton of subsidies? I rather appreciate them, and the only reason they may be becoming less relevant is not through a fault of their own.

There are plenty of businesses that become less relevant through no fault of their own (see 'buggy whip manufacturers'). That doesn't mean they require subsidies - it reminds me of Clevinger's father (?) in Catch-22 who made his fortune not growing parsley, investing government subsidies into buying more land on which to not grow parsley!

But the USPS is a good example of a point I've been lingering on since making my earlier comment - at what point does something become a basic right (or expectation, to prevent confusion with the Bill of Rights) in our society? Is postage a basic expectation? Is a home town newspaper a basic expectation? And if so, should we expect our taxes to subsidise them as we do with roads or healthcare?

Re: Journalism Needs Government Help

#22

Post by hooande »

hristov wrote: post #6

It is somewhat shocking to see this editorial in the wall street journal of all places. I have to say I strongly disagree. Subsidized press will just encourage more conflicts of interest in coverage of politics, will waste taxpayer money, and is unlikely to result in better journalism. About newspapers losing money, I suspect the main reason for this, and the reason nobody mentions is that newspapers and media compan…

NPR and PBS seem to have no problem with balanced and insightful journalism, despite being publically funded. Many people accuse public broadcasting of having a liberal bias, but in my years of listening I haven't heard that much if at all. They give fair time to all sides and they rarely favor any administration. I find it very hard to believe that public radio and television are a waste of taxpayer money.

For profit news may be in trouble, but journalism will be okay. Most people don't want informative journalism from foreign bureaus...they want confirmation of their biases from Fox News or MSNBC.

Re: Journalism Needs Government Help

#23

Post by joubert »

jorgeortiz85 wrote: post #19
hristov wrote: post #6

It is somewhat shocking to see this editorial in the wall street journal of all places. I have to say I strongly disagree. Subsidized press will just encourage more conflicts of interest in coverage of politics, will waste taxpayer money, and is unlikely to result in better journalism. About newspapers losing money, I suspect the main reason for this, and the reason nobody mentions is that newspapers and media compan…

The BBC does a better job at journalism than any US broadcaster or cable network channel. It's also completely funded by taxes.

NPR is very good.

Re: Journalism Needs Government Help

#24

Post by Finster »

jorgeortiz85 wrote: post #19
hristov wrote: post #6

It is somewhat shocking to see this editorial in the wall street journal of all places. I have to say I strongly disagree. Subsidized press will just encourage more conflicts of interest in coverage of politics, will waste taxpayer money, and is unlikely to result in better journalism. About newspapers losing money, I suspect the main reason for this, and the reason nobody mentions is that newspapers and media compan…

The BBC does a better job at journalism than any US broadcaster or cable network channel. It's also completely funded by taxes.

Not completely accurate... at least not in the sense most Americans think of it. The Beeb is funded almost entirely by TV licenses. True, this is still technically a tax, but it's not like the BBC has a limitless slush fund of income tax to draw upon.

Wikipedia actually has a really great breakdown of the funding.

If the U.S. government wants to have a government-run newspaper corp, then fine. Have it wholly funded by newspaper sales, then I have no problem. But as soon as general tax revenue is used to fund it, then forget it.

Re: Journalism Needs Government Help

#25

Post by [deleted] »

hooande wrote: post #22
hristov wrote: post #6

It is somewhat shocking to see this editorial in the wall street journal of all places. I have to say I strongly disagree. Subsidized press will just encourage more conflicts of interest in coverage of politics, will waste taxpayer money, and is unlikely to result in better journalism. About newspapers losing money, I suspect the main reason for this, and the reason nobody mentions is that newspapers and media compan…

NPR and PBS seem to have no problem with balanced and insightful journalism, despite being publically funded. Many people accuse public broadcasting of having a liberal bias, but in my years of listening I haven't heard that much if at all. They give fair time to all sides and they rarely favor any administration. I find it very hard to believe that public radio and television are a waste of taxpayer money. For profi…

[deleted]

Re: Journalism Needs Government Help

#26

Post by bokonist »

hooande wrote: post #22
hristov wrote: post #6

It is somewhat shocking to see this editorial in the wall street journal of all places. I have to say I strongly disagree. Subsidized press will just encourage more conflicts of interest in coverage of politics, will waste taxpayer money, and is unlikely to result in better journalism. About newspapers losing money, I suspect the main reason for this, and the reason nobody mentions is that newspapers and media compan…

NPR and PBS seem to have no problem with balanced and insightful journalism, despite being publically funded. Many people accuse public broadcasting of having a liberal bias, but in my years of listening I haven't heard that much if at all. They give fair time to all sides and they rarely favor any administration. I find it very hard to believe that public radio and television are a waste of taxpayer money. For profi…

Many people accuse public broadcasting of having a liberal bias, but in my years of listening I haven't heard that much if at all.

The liberal bias of PBS is a matter of what topics they emphasize and which facts they select. One small example of many - Frontline has done several documentaries about atrocities committed by American soldiers. But it has never done a documentary about how ultra-strict (by any standard, of any war, ever) rules of engagement have caused the death of soldiers. I could come up with dozens of similar examples. The only way to realize the extent of PBS's left-wing bias, is to actually read intelligent right wing sources, like Powerline, View from the Right, or Unqualified Reservations. Otherwise you'll never know the stories and facts that you are missing.

Re: Journalism Needs Government Help

#27

Post by mkramlich »

nickpinkston wrote: post #9
chrismealy wrote: post #4

Information is a public good[1] so there's a standard case for subsidizing it. To preserve choice and competition other folks have proposed giving everybody a $50 voucher that they can give to the news source of their choice. That would guarantee a minimum level of aggregate news production but not specify the particular producers. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

Haha - the road to economics hell is paved with public goods.

there are many roads to economic hell, others include Monopoly Highway and the once scenic Tragedy of the Commons Express

Re: Journalism Needs Government Help

#28

Post by danbmil99 »

bokonist wrote: post #26
hooande wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NPR and PBS seem to have no problem with balanced and insightful journalism, despite being publically funded. Many people accuse public broadcasting of having a liberal bias, but in my years of listening I haven't heard that much if at all. They give fair time to all sides and they rarely favor any administration. I find it very hard to believe that public radio and television are a waste of taxpayer money. For profi…

Many people accuse public broadcasting of having a liberal bias, but in my years of listening I haven't heard that much if at all. The liberal bias of PBS is a matter of what topics they emphasize and which facts they select. One small example of many - Frontline has done several documentaries about atrocities committed by American soldiers. But it has never done a documentary about how ultra-strict (by any standard,…

This. PBS & NPR's selection bias is much more subtle and well-crafted than FOX's bang-you-on-the-head agenda, but it's there for anyone with a wide range of sources to see.

Personally I've always felt publicly financed media is just a bad idea. The WSJ is just looking for a way to survive, and is willing to throw their supposed libertarian/free-market principles under a bus to do so. Can't blame them given that there's been public funding for liberally-slanted news for decades.

Re: Journalism Needs Government Help

#30

Post by tjmc »

jerf wrote: post #12
hristov wrote: post #6

It is somewhat shocking to see this editorial in the wall street journal of all places. I have to say I strongly disagree. Subsidized press will just encourage more conflicts of interest in coverage of politics, will waste taxpayer money, and is unlikely to result in better journalism. About newspapers losing money, I suspect the main reason for this, and the reason nobody mentions is that newspapers and media compan…

"the right wing papers will use this to once again call him a socialist while still pocketing their subsidy." Why on earth would right-wing papers get a subsidy? Or, more accurately, why would papers that disagree with whomever controls the pursestrings at the moment get a subsidy? You don't even have to cut off a paper the payer doesn't like, just reduce their payout. And why wouldn't Obama support it? Why wouldn't…

> There is absolutely, positively no such thing as a free press sponsored by public funds directed by the government.

Care to cite any references? What about the BBC and (Australian) ABC? Both have been huge thorns in the side of their respective governments over the years. In the case of the ABC, they definitely lean towards a liberal editorial view and this was maintained throughout 12 years of the previous conservative government's rule.

Post reply on HN