Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Should governments bailout journalism?

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

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

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here


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. September 28, 2007 12:51 PM PDT

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
.