It couldn’t happen in the US. Or could it? Some European governments have decided to pay journalist’s salaries. The Guardian reports:
On a visit to Amsterdam today, Dutch media minister Ronald Plasterk outlined his scheme to fund two “government journalists” to work on each of the Netherlands’ 30 or so daily newspapers. …
He said the decision had been reached as young journalists were often the first to lose their jobs when cuts were made and the current economic climate in the Netherlands was one of decreased circulations and revenue from ads.
Plasterk’s move has echoes of French president Nicolas Sarkozy’s pledge to provide €600m (£565m) in emergency aid to his nation’s failing press industry and supply every 18-year-old with a year’s free subscription to the paper of their choice to boost reading habits. …
In March this year, culture secretary Andy Burnham ruled out the possibility of the British government providing state subsidies to beleaguered local newspapers, despite voices across the industry – including Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian, part of the group that publishes MediaGuardian.co.uk – calling for alternative forms of funding to be considered.
Or is it a question not of if, but when a bailout will be announced for the press?
Blow all tanks. Close all hatches. Deploy the DSRV. But will it be enough? European demographics have collapsed. They can’t rescue anyone for long; their welfare state system is subject to an even greater degree than Social Security to the relentless pressure of population arithmetic. They are retreating to an ever smaller corner of a flooding hull. With the end of the old media model in sight, and with the momentum towards printing money building all over the West, the challenges from radical Islam, China and Russia cannot be far behind. Washington’s politicians are losing, if they have not lost, the bulk of their credibility. The media is losing, or has lost the ability to persuade. The bulkheads are going to start giving way, first singly, then in pairs and then cascading like dominoes. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon unless people wake up.
They can bail out the newspapers for now. But what will they do for an encore? (Spoiler: the sub’s crew is rescued in the movie)
embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
Why must they prolong the agony and bailout all these failed, corrupt enterprises? Put a bullet in its head and be done with it. The sooner the better.
Yes, it will happen in the US. No, it won’t make a difference.
The internet has destroyed the newspaper business, just as the automobile destroyed the horse-drawn carriage. I’m sure there were people who kept buying carriages for decades after the introduction of the Model T. But with the advent of the cheap and affordable car, the coach business contracted a terminal disease. Sure, it took a long time for actual death to occur, but it didn’t change the outcome.
If the government wants to subsidize journalists, more power to them. Government has never been able to compete against private players in an open market. So the only way to prevent the death of the MSM is for government to impose censorship. But even this is impossible at this point – the network will simply re-route around the bottleneck. Heck, they can’t even shut down jihadi websites; what makes you think they can shut down conservative dissent?
From the moment the MSM Titanic hit the internet iceberg, she was doomed. The smart journalists will scramble into the available lifeboats and row their way to safety. The rest will go to the ocean floor, waiting for the government frigate to arrive.
RIP, MSM.
L3
I vote “when”.
At least we will finally be able to dispense with the idea that the ObamaStreamMedia is objective, once and for all.
“The internet has destroyed the newspaper business”
No — the newspapers destroyed the newspaper business. Put out an unappealing mess of sludge brain-dead liberalism day after day, and people will vote with their feet.
That’s why subsidizing newspapers makes no difference — the only people who are going to read them are committed unthinking liberals, who are going to support Obama with or without the newspapers. Who listens to NPR? to PBS?
But the days of wine & roses may be coming to an end. Lord Obama has announced that the big deficits that he himself so recently proposed are unsustainable. There may be something of a palace coup going on within Obama’s head. News media should not count on there being funds to keep them churning out tripe.
1 – I would like to thank all of you for coming down to Washington on such short notice.
2 – We have asked you here because we are of the view that the United States must take strong, decisive action to arrest the stress in our newspaper industry.
3 – Over recent days we have worked hard to come up with a three point plan.
4 – First, we will assign two government paid “journalists” from Dear Leader’s college student groups to each of your papers.
5 – Second, we will appoint a White House Editor Czar for each of your poublications. This Czar will be responsible for all editorial decisions.
6 – Third, if the journalist and editor infustions are not appealing, you should be aware that your regulators will require them in any circumstances.
7 – We will be available to meet with you individually in
knuckle breakingbreakout sessions immediately after you sign over your publications to the Administration.One can easily understand the governments uneasiness at the wavering plight of the old media. If you control the purse strings of government, the old media has been very good to you. You can’t buy credibility like that, not when it is doled out for free as a means to strike at the heart of your enemy, the republican party. Payola must be continued. But you must pay off every union as well. Can you breath life into the twilight industry by supporting labor unions alone or must you threaten an information black out to lend credence to the admonishments of the Luddites. So many clients to pay off, but if you piss off your propaganda organ how can you survive in an atmosphere where deceit is the currency and the balance of payments are never to become due? Pick and choose your friends wisely because the enemies that you have sworn are not sleeping.
WE already have government journalists. There are many in the White House Press office. They send out fact filled information for the MSM to use to inform the public. There are military journalist also. They write articles that pertain to the military.
The big difference is the salaries. The government paid journalists do not get the mega bucks but the white house staff does get paid well.
If we really want the NYT to go down we should buy the stock when it is cheap and take it over and refused to relinquish and get it held up in court for years.
If the government wants to subsidize journalists, more power to them. Government has never been able to compete against private players in an open market. So the only way to prevent the death of the MSM is for government to impose censorship. But even this is impossible at this point – the network will simply re-route around the bottleneck. Heck, they can’t even shut down jihadi websites; what makes you think they can shut down conservative dissent?
There are far more subtle ways to impose censorship on the web. Rather than controlling the websites, which is nearly impossible, the logical route is to seek control of the browsers, the software that the user utilizes to access the Web. If the browser is hardwired to avoid certain sites, or to report users who attempt to access sites that are not “approved” by the powers that be, you can destroy much of the “subversive” aspect of the Internet. And–of course–put restrictions on the search engines.
And of course the talented computer-savy people can work around all this–but the average person cannot. The blueprint is there, probably coming to your reality very soon.
Anybody: when did the word “media” become singular? Also “data”?
Another “Titanic” analogy, the MSM’ers are now at the point in the movie where the ship has already split in two. The front half has already sunk and they’re clinging on to the stern railing…knowing full well their half is rapidly sliding toward Davy Jones’ Locker as well.
Another “Titanic” analogy, the MSM’ers are now at the point in the movie where the ship has already split in two. The front half has already sunk and they’re clinging on to the stern railing…knowing full well their half is rapidly sliding toward Davy Jones’ Locker as well.
You are talking about the old dynamics, where the makers of horse-drawn carriages were undermined by the automobile. We have the new dynamic now, the audacity of stupidity. If it would have been in place back then the car makers would have been intentionally taxed/regulated out of existence and the buggy-makers would have received a generous government subsidy.
And besides– Henry Ford never even went to an Ivy League college. You can’t trust peasants with money. The elites have been saying this throughout recorded history. Surely ten thousand generations of social parasites couldn’t be wrong, could they?
One interesting aspect of public subsidy for newspapers is the effect it may have once conservatives run the government. Would these newspapers redouble their demonization of conservatives or would they toe a new party line depending on who runs the government? I think either would be possible.
Gordon,
Use of the singular form “datum” it has been met with raised eyebrows and rolling eyeballs from my academic associates.
Ditto for the term “Vertexes” for multiple Cartesian data points in a 3D model. The use of the utterly perverse singular form “Vertice” (rhymes with “courtesy”) is becoming increasingly commonplace.
One contemplates seppuku, but one would miss the fascinating developments in the rest of the culture.
That scene has always left a great impression on me…when he looks back in…very creepy.
One could argue that the White House press corps are an institutional form of subsidy for the media. The White House can effectively control who gets access to the President or his spokesman and who doesn’t. Leveraging access to powerful people can have its effect on media coverage every bit as pervasive as direct subsidies. After all, it constitutes an indirect subsidy!
For that matter, the sports section of many newspapers is effectively subsidized by the government too. That’s because much of any sports section will have references to high school and college sports. These sporting events are invariably subsidized by taxpayers, to the extent that it should actually be called a form of socialism.
In other countries, there are professional soccer teams in minor cities that take same niche that college teams do in the United States. For that matter, baseball teams still have farm clubs as a relic from another era! If one considers the institutionalized subsidy of developing sports talent delivered by government subsidies, not to mention how stadiums are routinely financed by sales taxes, professional sports shoudln’t be considered to be anything close to a free enterprise system.
Unless and until one considers how access to White House briefings or college sports constitute de facto subsidies to the media, opposition to socialized media would be a matter of semantics. Besides, if the New York Times were owned by the federal government, would this necessarily lower the quality of its work? Or even change it? It would hardly be any worse than the prospect of the Mustang Ranch getting run by the IRS…
“vertexes?” how ’bout vertices?
I’ll split the two and give you medium.
“Unless and until one considers how access to White House briefings or college sports constitute de facto subsidies to the media, opposition to socialized media would be a matter of semantics. ”
Interesting point Alexis. Private companies have sued the government for the right to rescue private watercraft in inland waterways and coastal zones and have won. Many boaters are members of Vessel Assist or Sea Tow now because the Harbor Patrol no longer offers assistance in non-life threatening incidents. If it can be shown that a sports venue would make enough money to pay for itself then should it not be owned by private business? I think so but at least locally here in San Diego they have put it to a vote.
Scyth needn’t object to “vertices.”
Entirely legitimate.
But there are some horrific abuses of the “-ices” plural ending creeping into our language.
“the big deficits that he himself so recently proposed are unsustainable. There may be something of a palace coup going on within Obama’s head”
Kinuachdrach,
No coup there, it’s just a setup for the urgent, no time to debate, government takeover of health care. That is, the deficit is caused by health care costs, not government spending. It’s a very bad sign that Obama isn’t being humiliated to the point of cruelty.
Sports fans will remember the great game that went on in the 1990′s — The Oakland Raiders allowed themselves to be “wooed” and relocated to the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, funded by Municipal Bonds and taxes levied upon the hapless L.A. communities.
Then in 1995, They returned to Oakland, courtesy of the City of Alameda Board of Supervisors. More Municipal Bonds, and local taxes for fans who were blocked from viewing their own team’s home games on the local cable channels.
And that, sports fans, tells us a lot about politics, too.
I’ll split the two and give you medium.
Reminds me of Ogden Nash’s one-liner:
“Will you have your tedium rare or medium?”
No one can deny that the MSM is a rare purveyor of tedium.
I have, and continue, to look at this issue like a litmus test. Government rescue of the MSM represents a corruption of the idea of democracy that I cannot reconcile. It is a bridge too far.
I’m looking out for Catholic communities out there I can join and bring my folks to grow berries or whatever. I’m serious. And, I’m a Beltway Bandit US Defense contractor living the good life.
I’m increasingly done with that. In fact I’m trying to figure out a way that I can be increasingly done with that.
And no, I have never read Atlas Shrugged and I consider Ayn Rand to be a ridiculous joke of philosopher.
What in the hell is wrong with this man, Obama?
He came out today against his own policies. He said this level of deficit spending is dangerous and inherently unsustainable.
Obama said this, himself, and painted a horrifically scary picture.
Yet he pays no heed to this. He ignores his own admonition.
He is crazy. This is impossibly weird. It really has to be seen to be believed.
I’m looking out for Catholic communities out there I can join and bring my folks to grow berries or whatever. I’m serious.
Cowboy– you could try contacting the Anchoress (on Wretchard’s blogroll)– she is a Benedictine oblate and knows about a number of Catholic communities and groups for laypeople. If she can’t help you directly, she’ll certainly know someone who can. God bless.
Cowboy — this is Obama setting the stage for MASSIVE tax increase all across the board. EVERYTHING. Of course he’ll get a tax revolt, and from the most dangerous people (men) but Obama has catered to women and SWPL Yuppies and Blacks/Hispanics so long he kind of forgets that Joe Sixpack exists and can pose a mortal threat to his political alliance. Obama’s bet is that first, women will go along with his plan to tax men MORE and into oblivion, while “No White Guys allowed” are the rules for Government Spending. Women of course would be happy to pay more taxes just as long as most men are worse off, due to the lack of any real ties most women (who are single now for the first time in US Census Bureau History) have to most men … but men are likely to fight back, as are married women. The latter are small in number but make good organizers, most of the Tea Party organizers were older, married women.
Leo — In point of fact, Newspapers were in long declines BEFORE the Internet. The LAT for example peaked in circulation and trended every downwards every year since 1988. LONG before the internet.
Newspapers have one simple problem: NOT ENOUGH WHITE PEOPLE. Mexicans read newspapers, of course, but in SPANISH. They read La Opinion, or other Spanish Language newspapers, NOT the LA Times.
The Wall Street Journal has made money by providing business news and analysis, and a mostly right of center opinion section, nationally. The paper still makes money.
USA Today relied on travelers to make money, providing eye-catching graphics and upbeat stories for weary travelers. They are now in trouble and losing money now that travel is way down.
There is NO national sports paper, for example, despite the obvious demand for sports journalism.
Even (or especially) with sinking demographics, papers can still make money by providing stuff you can’t get elsewhere. But no one has followed this easy example. Yes the internet made things worse. But heck, newspapers now don’t even have TV schedules printed anymore. Much less a weekly Sunday TV Guide. No value.
You have all missed the point; let us each start a newspaper. Then as we struggle for readership we can produce a online version, which we can use the Goverment cash to underwrite.
Voila! We each have a government funded blog.
The only question is how long we could get away with it before we ended up with mandated content.
#13, et al: I’m not too big on “datum” myself but I still wistfully hope for “the data are”, “the media are”, etc. I’ll pass on “agenda”.
9,13,27
Some try to insist on treating “data” as though it were still Latin, but it’s a loanword now, and English usage is to treat it as a collective noun, not a plural form. Think of “jury”.
I think “media” is going the same way.
Or if you’re British, “the government are…”.
Wretchard,
I think that you may be overlooking some of the business models that are are already being used. As economic, technological and political conditions change, the bill payer for news changes. Some of the business models in use right now are
1. Advertiser pays (mostly cheap broadsheets available in supermarkets and street corners, many, many news websites).
2. Consumer pays (usually high value information like near real time quotes, expert analysis, insider newsletters, etc).
3. Consumer/advertiser hybrid. Almost all daily and weekly newspapers and news magazines. However, there is a value distribution with some publications selling for very little (daily papers) while other products with some expert analysis (WSJ, Economist) more heavily subsidized by consumers.
4. Private foundations. Many of these are hybrids with advertisers, consumers, and foundations splitting the bill, but publications like Atlantic, Foreign Affairs and almost all of the political weeklies are heavily subsidized by foundations.
5. Business. Press announcements, white papers, studies, data sheets,… the list is almost endless.
6. Governments. The BBC, VOA, Voice of Russia, and China Radio International to name but a few. While the BBC may be autonomous, most others aren’t.
7. Freelancers. Yon and a few others. Not an entirely new phenomena… there were quite a few in Victorian times. One could argue that quite a few stringers are essentially freelancers. The Internet, however, allows them to sell their wares directly to the consumer.
We typically associate freedom of the press with consumer/advertiser subsidized media. If the Internet cannot provide enough intellectual property protection for them to make a profit, who pays? My guess is that foundations, businesses and governments will move to fill the vacuum. Is news paid for by GE any more or less biased than news paid for by advertisers and consumers? I suspect that it will be more biased and that eventually the radical change brought about by the Internet (really a bandwidth explosion: cable, radio, satellite are other media) will result in a political crisis of constitutional proportions. We are only witnessing the first stirrings of this beast.
I think that your larger point about Europe is correct. You have written a number of posts about media and the Internet lately, and I felt that a marketing perspective would aid your world-class insights.
The gray ladie’s vertere is down as the government are passing funding and data to the mediae…or something.
#25 whiskey:
There’s The Sporting News, which has been around forever. I don’t know how it’s doing financially, though.
“Yet he pays no heed to this. He ignores his own admonition.
He is crazy. This is impossibly weird. It really has to be seen to be believed.”
Other possibility is that he’s been bought and paid for, and is doing what he’s told to do while at the same time recognizing that it will lead to failure or the overturn of American principles.
Cowboy @22
Outside Waelder, Texas, there is a small, mixed (monks and sisters) Catholic farming community. Very nice people, stable, well-thought of by surrounding towns. Anyone around there can direct you to their farm.
That is in the middle of old Checkoslovakian and German country, where the original settlers came in around 1848 or so. Some Poles too, and a few Amish. They built the “painted churches” (gotta see those). The German, Chech, Polish they speak is archaic, hardly understandable to tourists from those countries. They have wonderful bake shops, with Chech Kolaches, German Struedel, etc. Saturday night dances at Grange halls. Whole families attend, little kids too. (Like in the movie “Hope Floats” with Sandra Bullock, made in nearby Smithville.)
Summer heat will take about a year to get used to, then you’ll be fine. Lovely rolling green hills, oaks and mesquite. Incredible wildflowers cover just about everything in early Spring. Some good eating places. Texas has, you know, the best Tex-Mex food. Walmart’s, Dairy Queens, McDonalds for the kids too. Area is so low-crime you won’t believe it.
A good hospital in the area, and a group of them at Victoria, 1 1/2 hours away.
Good housing doesn’t cost much. Sports is king. Many Catholic churches around. About 1 1/2 hours from Austin, 2 hours to Houston or San Antonio, Gulf Coast is in easy driving distance. Great area for raising kids!
Maybe Buddy Larsen would have some helpful thoughts too.
Wretchard, the “edit” function is not working.