Would the West be better served by a not-for-profit newspaper industry?

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Which conservative newspaper wont let a liberal on the op ed page?

the wsj


anyways editorial pages aside, the actually news coverage of all the major newspapers is pretty solidly fact based, and probably the most complete and indepth reporting available. Personally, i think an ideal situation would be a large national, non-profit journalistic organization.

That said, alot of the content of many newpapers (such as my local Fargo Forum) have really gone to shit lately, cutting content and filling it with shit. This certainly can't be a good long run strategy, to leave your customers wondering why they are even subscribed (as my parents are).

The usa today kinda plays to the lowest common denominator, and therefore is worthless.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Lemon law
For all the criticism the radical right levels at the NYT, its worth noting that the New York Times is also noted for frequently allowing various "conservative" writers to contribute and publish their own OP ED pieces. That way, the reader is exposed to both viewpoints, the viewpoint from the right and the left, and then its up to the reader to decide which take seems to be more valid. And what seems to best describe the facts on the ground.

Very different from the right's version of a newspaper, where any liberal view is regarded as heresy to be burned at the nearest stake.

The fact is, that a newspaper, be it on line or print, can manage to achieve non bias by hosting contrasting versions of biased writers.

Right, it was my mistake, the New York Times led with an article on Abu Ghraib on page 1 for 32 days in a row yet almost never led with any positive news out of Iraq. It was my mistake, the NYT never ran a report on hearsay of a McCain affair in the middle of a Presidential campaign, while killing a story on ACORN's alleged deceitful tactics and connections with the Obama campaign that went against campaign laws. And it was my mistake, the NYT never allowed an editorial strongly implying Bill O'Reilly is a white supremacist for opposing illegal immigration.

Hey, I don't read the Times. I don't live near New York. But there is a reason why the paper is tanking. If you have a better guess, I'd like to hear it.



Whatever, any paper is allowed to write anything they want - then the people decide whether they want to read it or not. But they should _never_ be funded by the government.

What positive news do you expect from a war zone?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Lemon law
For all the criticism the radical right levels at the NYT, its worth noting that the New York Times is also noted for frequently allowing various "conservative" writers to contribute and publish their own OP ED pieces. That way, the reader is exposed to both viewpoints, the viewpoint from the right and the left, and then its up to the reader to decide which take seems to be more valid. And what seems to best describe the facts on the ground.

Very different from the right's version of a newspaper, where any liberal view is regarded as heresy to be burned at the nearest stake.

The fact is, that a newspaper, be it on line or print, can manage to achieve non bias by hosting contrasting versions of biased writers.

Right, it was my mistake, the New York Times led with an article on Abu Ghraib on page 1 for 32 days in a row yet almost never led with any positive news out of Iraq. It was my mistake, the NYT never ran a report on hearsay of a McCain affair in the middle of a Presidential campaign, while killing a story on ACORN's alleged deceitful tactics and connections with the Obama campaign that went against campaign laws. And it was my mistake, the NYT never allowed an editorial strongly implying Bill O'Reilly is a white supremacist for opposing illegal immigration.

Hey, I don't read the Times. I don't live near New York. But there is a reason why the paper is tanking. If you have a better guess, I'd like to hear it.



Whatever, any paper is allowed to write anything they want - then the people decide whether they want to read it or not. But they should _never_ be funded by the government.

abu ghraib was by far the most important news coming out of iraq at the time, and was completely deserving of being on the front page. I don't see how putting it on the front page can be taken as a sign of any sort of political bias. The allegations against acorn/obama were clearly nothing, and noone cares about whats on the editorial page.

 

[Lemon law]

In terms of a quality issue, the newspaper gold standard has just weighted in.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.../ap_on_re_us/pulitzers.

And the NYT won five of them, and it surely must dismay the right that one of those prizes brought Elliot Spitzer down. Gee the NYT sure must hate
republicans named Spitzer*???????????????????????????? ( *sarcasm duly admitted )

 

[IGBT]

most of em are worthless liberal agenda pushing rags. How come the targeted readers(liberals) don't support their party propaganda crapola??

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: IGBT
most of em are worthless liberal agenda pushing rags. How come the targeted readers(liberals) don't support their party propaganda crapola??

is this a serious or parody post?

it seems like a parody post.

 

[Double Trouble]

Right or left doesn't matter. The connection between content and profit must continue to exist. If people don't want to read the content, then the paper should cease to exist. As simple as that. The last thing we need is media controlled by the government with no accountability to anyone since their funding is there no matter what.....

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Right or left doesn't matter. The connection between content and profit must continue to exist. If people don't want to read the content, then the paper should cease to exist. As simple as that. The last thing we need is media controlled by the government with no accountability to anyone since their funding is there no matter what.....

I think the idea is that without being beholden to a particular set of owners/investors and being government funded that a news outlet would naturally be more unbiased.

It's certainly possible, but not a given.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Right or left doesn't matter. The connection between content and profit must continue to exist. If people don't want to read the content, then the paper should cease to exist. As simple as that. The last thing we need is media controlled by the government with no accountability to anyone since their funding is there no matter what.....

I think the idea is that without being beholden to a particular set of owners/investors and being government funded that a news outlet would naturally be more unbiased.

It's certainly possible, but not a given.

i didn't realize that anyone was talking about government ownership here?

endowments =/= government.

basically the NYT wants to become an endowed entity similar to, say, Harvard.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Newspapers have failed in giving us unbiased news coverage, *especially* the New York Times. They deserve *no* taxpayer funding. The whole basis of our freedom is that government and media are entirely separated.

If they can obtain private funding, then so be it, private funding can be turned off if the newspaper continues to be a failure. Public funding lasts forever.

the nyt is biased? based on what?

Funny thing is, of all the people proclaiming how horrible the Times is, you would be hard pressed to find one who actually reads it. And the ultimate hypocrisy is that many of these clowns get their "news" from AM radio or Fox.

 

[OCGuy]

Someone actually wants the government to own the newspapers? They are bad enough as it is now.


Yikes, ill stick with other sources.

 

[Lemon law]

Gotta somewhat disagree with Mani, when he says "Funny thing is, of all the people proclaiming how horrible the Times is, you would be hard pressed to find one who actually reads it. And the ultimate hypocrisy is that many of these clowns get their "news" from AM radio or Fox."

Well funny thing, I read the online version of the NYT on a daily basis, and also scan news from a wide variety of other sources. I even listen to Limbaugh on occasion. Ideas, even biased ideas, are brain food. Do you think for yourself or do you allow yourself to become indoctrinated and brainwashed.?

That is the question.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Genx87
Which conservative newspaper wont let a liberal on the op ed page?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turn the question around, which do?

Ill take that as you are blowing smoke out your ass.

 

[halik]

I would tend to agree, just compare mass media "where's hallie?" garbage to stuff that NPR.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Gotta somewhat disagree with Mani, when he says "Funny thing is, of all the people proclaiming how horrible the Times is, you would be hard pressed to find one who actually reads it. And the ultimate hypocrisy is that many of these clowns get their "news" from AM radio or Fox."

Well funny thing, I read the online version of the NYT on a daily basis, and also scan news from a wide variety of other sources. I even listen to Limbaugh on occasion. Ideas, even biased ideas, are brain food. Do you think for yourself or do you allow yourself to become indoctrinated and brainwashed.?

That is the question.

Thanks for your patronizing drivel, but maybe you just didn't understand what I was saying. My point was exactly that the very people who claim bias from the Times tend to immerse themselves in the one-sided "biased" media they denounce. And for the record, I tune into the worst of AM radio, FN, and Drudge with regularity to make sure I hear all sides.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Mediums change. Newspapers should die.

Agreed, but what about grandma and grandpa who don't know how to turn on a PC? Massive internet training for seniors? Or just saddle them with Fox news?

They've lived long enough to know what's going on.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: halik
I would tend to agree, just compare mass media "where's hallie?" garbage to stuff that NPR.

You should probably look more closely at NPR's funding.

 

[JS80]

I don't think snobby reporters will like non-profit salaries.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: yllus
If it allows us to both save the ailing newspaper industry and further promote editorial independence, I think that this is an idea worthy of further discussion. In my opinion newspapers do the public a service that's valuable enough to consider supplementing through our taxes.

Wow, so many ways to look at this, and some of which is ignored or misleading.

1. Newspapers aren't the "news industry" as the article seems to imply ("OMG robust news coverage will disappear without newpapers"). Newspaper are basically a distribution model. Before radio, TV and internet printing the news on paper and distributing it by manual delivery or mail etc was the best model, is it still?

I think we're fast coming to the point where printing on actual paper is going the way of dinosaurs. The news will still be in text form (as opposed to TV or radio) but we won't need paper to display the text (as we don't now with the internet). Paper currently enjoys the advantage of portability but with the emergence of thin flexible display screens that may be somewhat dimished.

Is the mere priniting on paper that big deal to save?

Likely the answer is "NO", so author distorts the issue into one of journalism and reporting being jepoardized. I disagree, with his distortion.

2. The newspapers' main problem is falling distribution, how will being 'nonprofit' address that? It won't. People are steadily preferring another medium, or distribution, for their news. Waving a magic wand and declaring newspapers as now nonprofit will do nothing to address that issue.

Falling advert revenue is tied to falling circulation. The article fails to even mention declining revenue from falling circulation. What good is a newspaper that isn't read? None I would say (other than wrapping dead fish etc).

3. Promote editorial independence? How so? What is now curtailing editorial independence?

I can only guess it may be the market place - i.e. sales of newspapers. (Can't be advert revenue as that is still mentioned as a source of funds). So going to a donor base will promote more editorial independence? I don't see any argument for that. Currently we have thousands of people (market force) exerting any influence that may exist, moving to a non-profit model where a smaller group of heavy-weight donors exerts the influence hardly seems a step in the right direction. I'd prefer any such influence be spread out in the hands of the larger group instead of being concentrated in the few.

If ownership wields that influence I see no possibility for that to change by going nonprofit. Nonprofits are governed in pretty the exact same manner as for-profits.

Does the profit motive impact editorial independence? Well, possibly but that's because they are trying to reach as large a market as possible. So what if as a nonprofit they don't care about a large market? Well, for one - what good is a newspaper nobody reads, and for another we already have that - there are many news publications from nonprofits that don't target a large audience. We have many nonprofit 'think tanks' that publish indepth news & analysis type articles. They are ideological driven by their donor base (another argument contrary to that of editorial independence - the nonprofit models we have now are anything BUT free of influence by their donor base).

If somebody wants to mention that much market driven news is trash, fine so what? Converting these newspapers to nonprofit won't change that a bit - at all.

4. There is nothing now really stopping newspapers from being nonprofits. News is educational, and educational activites are already nonprofit under section 501(c)(3). (Their advert revenue would still taxable because they in that they compete with for-profit business, I see no reason that should change.)

5. So, if they can be nonprofits under current rules, what are they really after with this proposal?

IDK, maybe they want rich people to be able donate money but write it off on their taxes. Well, they can already do that, but currently it must be one of those think tanks - do they want in on that? (BTW: anyone can donate to one of these newspapers, there is nothing stopping that - again just no deduction)

Or, are they after taxpayer money? If so, and IMO that is the most likely, they are being highly misleading by trying to bring this under the banner of "nonprofits". Most nonprofits receive no money from the government, maybe their donors get a tax deduction for contributions but the nonprofits themselves get zip from the government.

I strongly oppose taxpayer money for newspaper, but that's another thread because this article says "nonprofits" and doesn't even mention taxpayer support. (Nor, for some reason, does it even mention that we already have nonprofit 'news' type orgnizations/publications. No, this is about something else; something other than merely being "nonprofits" and something unmentioned.)

Fern

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: halik
I would tend to agree, just compare mass media "where's hallie?" garbage to stuff that NPR.

You should probably look more closely at NPR's funding.

Less than 2% of NPR's money comes from the government.

As for newspapers, let them die. It's not our society's job to prop up failing industries just because they offer an intangible "public good."

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Someone actually wants the government to own the newspapers? They are bad enough as it is now.


Yikes, ill stick with other sources.

You speak as if that is a bad thing.
Watch The News Hour with Jim Lehrer and listen to NPR.

I'd rather listen to those than to watch FOX and CNN reporting that "Waldo is missing" for 2 months.
Waldo is missing. Where is he? Can you find Waldo?