Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Governments already subsidize journalism without problem

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 19:33, 1 May 2009 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 19:34, 1 May 2009 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Supporting quotations)
Next diff →
Line 4: Line 4:
==Supporting quotations== ==Supporting quotations==
[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks9-2009apr09,1,4863536.column Rosa Brooks. "Bail out journalism". Los Angeles Times. April 9, 2009]: "If the thought of government subsidization of journalism seems novel, it shouldn't. Most other democracies provide far more direct government support for public media than the U.S. does (Canada spends 16 times as much per capita; Britain spends 60 times as much). And as Nichols and McChesney point out, our government already 'doles out tens of billions of dollars in direct and indirect [media] subsidies,' including free broadcast, cable and satellite privileges." [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks9-2009apr09,1,4863536.column Rosa Brooks. "Bail out journalism". Los Angeles Times. April 9, 2009]: "If the thought of government subsidization of journalism seems novel, it shouldn't. Most other democracies provide far more direct government support for public media than the U.S. does (Canada spends 16 times as much per capita; Britain spends 60 times as much). And as Nichols and McChesney point out, our government already 'doles out tens of billions of dollars in direct and indirect [media] subsidies,' including free broadcast, cable and satellite privileges."
 +
 +
 +[http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090406/nichols_mcchesney?rel=hp_picks John Nichols and Robert McChesney. "The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers". Nation. March 18, 2009]: "But government support for the press is not merely a matter of history or legal interpretation. Complaints about a government role in fostering journalism invariably overlook the fact that our contemporary media system is anything but an independent "free market" institution. The government subsidies established by the founders did not end in the eighteenth--or even the nineteenth--century. Today the government doles out tens of billions of dollars in direct and indirect subsidies, including free and essentially permanent monopoly broadcast licenses, monopoly cable and satellite privileges, copyright protection and postal subsidies. (Indeed, this magazine has been working for the past few years with journals of the left and right to assure that those subsidies are available to all publications.) Because the subsidies mostly benefit the wealthy and powerful, they are rarely mentioned in the fictional account of an independent and feisty Fourth Estate. Both the rise and decline of commercial journalism can be attributed in part to government policies, which scrapped the regulations and ownership rules that had encouraged local broadcast journalism and allowed for lax regulation as well as tax deductions for advertising--policies that greatly increased news media revenues."

Revision as of 19:34, 1 May 2009

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Rosa Brooks. "Bail out journalism". Los Angeles Times. April 9, 2009: "If the thought of government subsidization of journalism seems novel, it shouldn't. Most other democracies provide far more direct government support for public media than the U.S. does (Canada spends 16 times as much per capita; Britain spends 60 times as much). And as Nichols and McChesney point out, our government already 'doles out tens of billions of dollars in direct and indirect [media] subsidies,' including free broadcast, cable and satellite privileges."


John Nichols and Robert McChesney. "The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers". Nation. March 18, 2009: "But government support for the press is not merely a matter of history or legal interpretation. Complaints about a government role in fostering journalism invariably overlook the fact that our contemporary media system is anything but an independent "free market" institution. The government subsidies established by the founders did not end in the eighteenth--or even the nineteenth--century. Today the government doles out tens of billions of dollars in direct and indirect subsidies, including free and essentially permanent monopoly broadcast licenses, monopoly cable and satellite privileges, copyright protection and postal subsidies. (Indeed, this magazine has been working for the past few years with journals of the left and right to assure that those subsidies are available to all publications.) Because the subsidies mostly benefit the wealthy and powerful, they are rarely mentioned in the fictional account of an independent and feisty Fourth Estate. Both the rise and decline of commercial journalism can be attributed in part to government policies, which scrapped the regulations and ownership rules that had encouraged local broadcast journalism and allowed for lax regulation as well as tax deductions for advertising--policies that greatly increased news media revenues."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.