Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Should governments bailout journalism?

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 03:24, 1 May 2009 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Con)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 03:36, 1 May 2009 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Con)
Next diff →
Line 33: Line 33:
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "Pro" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em;"| |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "Pro" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em;"|
====Con==== ====Con====
-''Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here''+ 
 +*'''Subsidization of journalism would come with too many strings.''' [http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9787518-38.html Declan McCullagh. "Should you be taxed to subsidize 'The New York Times'?". CNET. September 28, 2007] - "The main reason I say the answer should be [that government do] nothing [for the journalism industry] is that government money tends to come with strings attached. Sure, at first, a handout may seem free. But over time, that tends to change. Look at the ongoing controversies over the National Endowment for the Arts. In response to controversial photographs (including a provocative retrospective of photographer Robert Mapplethorpe's work) in an NEA-funded exhibit, Congress did two things. It reduced the NEA's budget for the next fiscal year and then slapped a new restriction on the agency, saying that its grants must take 'into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public.'"

Revision as of 03:36, 1 May 2009

Should governments subsidize journalism, particularly as the industry struggles to survive?

Contents

Background and Context of Debate:

Public good: Is journalism a public good warranting of subsization?

Pro

  • Journalism is public good for democracy, deserves subsidies. Journalism is an important public good. It fosters critical communication between government and citizens as well as between citizens and government at the global, national, state, and even local levels. It fosters "the public debate" and, as a result, it improves decision-making and governance. It is no exaggeration to say that journalism is essential in a thriving democratic society and, therefore, that it is a public good. As with most public goods, government subsidization is often justified, particularly if the public good is at risk of disappearing. Journalism is certainly at risk and even in crisis in the modern Internet era, so should subsidized by government.


Con

  • Subsidization of journalism would come with too many strings. Declan McCullagh. "Should you be taxed to subsidize 'The New York Times'?". CNET. September 28, 2007 - "The main reason I say the answer should be [that government do] nothing [for the journalism industry] is that government money tends to come with strings attached. Sure, at first, a handout may seem free. But over time, that tends to change. Look at the ongoing controversies over the National Endowment for the Arts. In response to controversial photographs (including a provocative retrospective of photographer Robert Mapplethorpe's work) in an NEA-funded exhibit, Congress did two things. It reduced the NEA's budget for the next fiscal year and then slapped a new restriction on the agency, saying that its grants must take 'into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public.'"


Write Subquestion here...

Pro

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





Con

  • Government should not bailout journalism in the face of competition. Declan McCullagh. "Should you be taxed to subsidize 'The New York Times'?". CNET. September 28, 2007 - "everyone says they like competition in theory, but nobody actually likes to have competitors in practice. For the better part of a decade, Craigslist and eBay have been slowly nibbling away at newspapers' classified-ads business. A 2005 MediaPost article says that as a result, according to McKinsey, newspapers have lost as much as 75 percent of their pricing abilities in key categories such as employment and general merchandise. Google is another competitive threat, with both broad and very targeted ads, and the cost of newsprint probably isn't helping. [...] So the threat to newspapers' long-term existence, at least in their current form, is real. The real question is: what should the government do about it? [...] I believe that the answer is nothing. We didn't see taxpayer subsidies bail out stock brokers (unhappy about E*Trade) or travel agents (unhappy about Expedia). In fact, the federal government officially chose to side with disruptive technologies."


Pro/con sources

Pro



Con

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





External links

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.