‘First, Do No Harm’: A Plea to the FTC
On May 24, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (not to be confused with the Federal Communications Commission, which is also trying to help in a crisis not to be wasted) released a document titled “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism.”
It must, in the minds of some folks, be time for our masters to push the reset button. The FTC document notes that “this draft does not represent conclusions or recommendations by the Commission or FTC staff; it is solely for purposes of discussion.” On June 4, the FTC further clarified that the earlier discussion draft had not actually endorsed any proposal.
That’s nice.
Maybe it’s just a gas bag trial balloon. On June 11, the FTC posted a charming Fathers’ Day tribute titled DADvice: Stuff Dads Really Say; presumably that didn’t stake out a firm position either. I wouldn’t worry too much; there’s lots of more important stuff happening and most if not all of the proposals under consideration by the FTC would require congressional action to modify copyright laws and the Internal Revenue Code.
The proposal is directed at sustaining historically useful but decreasingly viable means of one-way communication of news and other stuff to the public. Newspapers are dying. A comparison to the industry earlier devoted to horse drawn carriages is apt. To have attempted to keep the “carriage trade” alive by requiring automobile manufacturers and the public in general to subsidize it, directly or indirectly, would have been foolish; now, a “Drudge Tax” is envisioned, sort of like an automobile tax to support buggy whip manufacturers, I guess.
Rather confusingly, the document notes:
Studies have shown that newspapers typically provide the largest quantity of original news to consumers over any given period of time. We include within the term “newspapers” online news websites run either by an existing newspaper or by an online-only news organization. Other sources of news are also important, of course, and proposals for action should not favor newspapers over other news platforms. (emphasis added)
The document then proceeds to explore multiple ways to favor “newspapers” over other news platforms.
In various contexts, however, it seems as though the term “newspaper” is used to refer exclusively to the printed things in which we wrap fish and with which we house train pups. For example, the document notes that “the trend toward online, rather than print, advertising is very likely to continue over time, forcing newspapers to look for other sources of revenue.” Should they cease to exist, we will have to find other things in which to wrap fish and with which to house train pups; the Internet does not work.
Journalism is in sorry shape these days, and the biggest consequence of this is an increasingly ill-informed general public and ever more antagonistic political debates, thanks to participants having their own unique set of “facts.” The so-called “new media” is no more than a Tower of Babble, and the “old media” is on life support and mostly beholden to greater corporate interests. You also have things only resembling the news media, like Fox News, that is mostly for entertainment and rabble rousing, but is worse than useless for getting informed on what’s going on. Even using Google to try to be your own journalist has become much more problematic with SEO manipulation of Google search results, like this for instance, now very common.
The bottom line is that something needs to be done — a good free press is a responsible and diligent one. And while the clueless might dismiss newspapers as being dinosaurs, to this day they are still the primary journalistic sources for real news, and nothing has really stepped up as an adequate replacement. Pre-Internet, I remember as a kid lots of speculation about TV news replacing newspapers, but that never happened. The networks news was mostly pretty sketchy and mostly recited headline events, with the lone exception being CBS’s special reports, and local TV news focused mostly on sports, weather, and local headline bits, with the occasional tabloidish “exposes” during sweeps weeks. The surge in 24 hr cable news shows and the expansion of local TV news did nothing to improve matters. So now we have the Internet and a myriad of sources, most of which are junk and getting junkier.
As usual, you confuse facts with propaganda, and propaganda with facts.
They’re called HUNs – Historically Underutilized Newspapers
“The FCC document notes that “this draft does not represent conclusions or recommendations by the Commission or FTC staff; it is solely for purposes of discussion.” On June 4, the FTC further clarified that the earlier discussion draft had not actually endorsed any proposal.”
Am reading that as, “We’ve been told [by a particular party or parties] to present this before the public……..
OR ELSE.”
.
This is one of the more poorly written PJM articles I’ve read–not that I disagree with it. Take it back to the shed, Dan.
This country has not had a free press since william Randalph Hearst said to one of his photographers in Cuba you ptovide the pictures I will provide the war. The development of printing technology had robbed the United States of free press until Woodrow Willson 75,000 member propiganda ministry put it to the sword until the current decade. The advanatages of capital intensive publishing were such that they used to say “Never argue with anyone who buys ink by the barrel and paper by the ton.” That stated true until Matt Drudge with his straw hat and laptop won the day against the New York Times.
The1992 advent of the World Wide Web gave us back a free press. The FTC is just trying to take it away again.
Thanks for a great article, Dan. It’s a funny, satirical take on a really stupid idea. Anyone, liberal or conservative, who would support government subsidy and support of the press is a fool.
Was Obsama’s neo-Goebbels/Propaganda Commisar, ‘Ass – “This Is For Your Own Good – You Just Don’t Know It, Pally!” – Bunstain,’ seen in the area?
And why should FTC heed anyone’s plea, pray tell me …? Haven’t we learnt enough? Pleas, townhalls, protests, street progressions, speeches, twittoring —ain’t gonna have ANY effect on the beastly machine of Obama. Why would anyone want to waste time by pleading to the crocodile not to eat them? Now if you talk about, and act on, ‘kicking some crocodile arse’, that would be useful.