Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Should governments bailout journalism?

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 03:40, 1 May 2009 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Con)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 03:41, 1 May 2009 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Con)
Next diff →
Line 34: Line 34:
====Con==== ====Con====
-*'''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.'"+*'''Subsidization of journalism comes 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.'"
*'''NPR/PBS are examples subsidization coming with 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] - "I'm sure that at this point, some readers might be thinking, 'What about National Public Radio? It's taxpayer-supported, right?' Yes. NPR and PBS receive about 15 percent of their combined budget from the government. [...] Even though that's not a huge amount by percentage, it has made NPR the target of political threats by President Richard Nixon and House Speaker Newt Gingrich, both Republicans, to eliminate its funding. Conservatives say NPR itself has admitted a liberal bias while liberals accuse it of being elitist. Do newspapers really want that controversy spilling over into their pages?" *'''NPR/PBS are examples subsidization coming with 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] - "I'm sure that at this point, some readers might be thinking, 'What about National Public Radio? It's taxpayer-supported, right?' Yes. NPR and PBS receive about 15 percent of their combined budget from the government. [...] Even though that's not a huge amount by percentage, it has made NPR the target of political threats by President Richard Nixon and House Speaker Newt Gingrich, both Republicans, to eliminate its funding. Conservatives say NPR itself has admitted a liberal bias while liberals accuse it of being elitist. Do newspapers really want that controversy spilling over into their pages?"

Revision as of 03:41, 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 comes 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.'"
  • NPR/PBS are examples subsidization coming with strings. Declan McCullagh. "Should you be taxed to subsidize 'The New York Times'?". CNET. September 28, 2007 - "I'm sure that at this point, some readers might be thinking, 'What about National Public Radio? It's taxpayer-supported, right?' Yes. NPR and PBS receive about 15 percent of their combined budget from the government. [...] Even though that's not a huge amount by percentage, it has made NPR the target of political threats by President Richard Nixon and House Speaker Newt Gingrich, both Republicans, to eliminate its funding. Conservatives say NPR itself has admitted a liberal bias while liberals accuse it of being elitist. Do newspapers really want that controversy spilling over into their pages?"

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
.