Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,396
    Thanks (Given)
    11
    Thanks (Received)
    1501
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    47
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2067948

    Default Congress moves to bail out print newspapers... and regulate more of what they print

    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.

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

    http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...52N67F20090324

    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)
    "The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Newnan, GA
    Posts
    6,236
    Thanks (Given)
    21
    Thanks (Received)
    83
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    31138

    Default

    Hooray for freedom of the press! Good thing no one thinks the First Amendment is part of our living, breathing, ever-changing Constitution!

    Oh, wait...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks (Given)
    177
    Thanks (Received)
    680
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1200646

    Default

    First guns and ammo, then the press...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    9,768
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    28
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    16
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    515526

    Default

    the press is mostly like high school: a bunch of boys and girls with their first crush: Obama
    I Believe in love, personal liberty, and less government/more non profits

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,761
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    9
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    9
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    26772

    Default

    Posted this same topic here two days ago:

    http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=22060

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums