Can we friggin’ call ‘em or what?
Eight days after President Barack Obama took office, we predicted it wouldn’t be long until “The One” rewarded his sycophantic media darlings with a taxpayer-funded bailout to ease the financial woes caused by declining viewership and sagging circulation.
Don’t believe us? Here’s the link.
Obviously, when U.S. Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland) introduced legislation in Congress to do just that, we posted another link on the subject.
Well, in an interview with the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Toledo Blade (ouch!), Obama said he is “happy to look at” a newspaper bailout bill.
From The Blade:
“Journalistic integrity, you know, fact-based reporting, serious investigative reporting, how to retain those ethics in all these different new media and how to make sure that it’s paid for, is really a challenge,” Mr. Obama said. “But it’s something that I think is absolutely critical to the health of our democracy …”
“… I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding,” Obama said.
We hate to be blunt, but if the mainstream media was doing its friggin’ job there wouldn’t be a market for websites like this one, and this isn’t about “journalistic integrity,” it’s about providing an unfair (and taxpayer-funded) competitive advantage to media outlets that will do what the government tells them to do.
So, with all due respect to the office he currently occupies, President Orwell … err, Obama, can kiss our black asses.
Even worse than the soft censorship of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” – which would require media outlets to present “both sides” of a political issue – the notion of government spending so much as a dime on subsidizing or bailing out the newspaper industry (or any segment of the Fourth Estate) is anathema to American democracy.
As John Mayer sings, “when you trust your television, what you get is what you got … cause when they own the information they can bend it all they want.”
And yes that’s a gay song, but it’s a great quote.
By Interloper September 21, 2009 at 7:47 am
There is no intent to revive the Fairness Doctrine, and, you would commit suicide rather than have a black ass. Just sayin.’
By dirtbogger September 21, 2009 at 8:44 am
Fits you should do some research on the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and what purpose it serves for all major media to be part of this organization who started it, where its funding comes from and who is on the members list. Why were almost all of our recent presidential candidates members? Are the minutes from their meetings public information?
By CNSYD September 21, 2009 at 10:13 am
dirtbogger, If CFR is a public organization then their meeting minutes would be obtainable. They are not public so thay don’t have to release them. Neither do the Masons, for example. IRT recent Presidents being members, it is sort of like other organizations such as the NAACP. They bestow membership on “leading political figures” to enhance their rolls. Of course with the amount of money the members of the CFR represents, no politician can resist it. The media uses politicians and the politicians use the media. Nothing new there.
By dirtbogger September 21, 2009 at 10:30 am
CNSYD, you took the fun out of it. But theres my point (Wee) The People do not pick our presidets (they) the elite do. Is there an unseen hand guding our nation? Is Atlas Shrugged the playbook?
By What a waste September 21, 2009 at 11:02 am
I suspect that this is the kind of blog that Obama was referring to.
… “rewarded his sycophantic media darlings with a taxpayer-funded bailout to ease the financial woes caused by declining viewership and sagging circulation.”
Get your facts straight.
It’s not a taxpayer-funded bailout. The president said he would be happy to look at bills before Congress that would give news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as nonprofit businesses.
This is different than a handover of taxpayer dollars.
Secondly, the financial woes aren’t caused by declining viewership and sagging circulation. The woes are caused by the enormous decrease in advertising revenue due to deepest recession since the great depression.
More people want to stay informed now more than ever. And the number of those seeking the news online is growing by leaps and bounds.
This brings me to my last point: Who do you think provides the news that folks read online?
Look closely at the credits, and you will see that the majority of news content on the web is written by journalists in the newsrooms of newspapers across the country. You didn’t actually think that Google or Yahoo staffs their own reporters did you?
Get a clue.
By Sadjo September 21, 2009 at 11:04 am
Newspaper’s were bailout years ago when many, many state legislators voted to make city, county and state governments publish their minutes and votes in local papers. Have you checked the legal advertising costs of newspapers?
Another argument that sucks moose roots is, “Newspapers are the ones that do all the investagative reporting and without newspapers, who’s keeping tabs on government and public officials?”
It wasn’t until the early ’70s that newspapers became the investigative reporters of record. Before the ’70s, it was news magazines like Time and Newsweek.
Investigative reporting is now up to broadcast media and internet news sites. We might have less of that kind of reporting short term but as long as we have politicians we’ll have politicians screwing three time left of the wind.
By fitsnews September 21, 2009 at 11:13 am
WAW-
Thanks for the exhortation but we have “a clue.” Several of them, in fact.
Seriously, if you think the declining viewership and sagging circulation in the media industry is solely attributable to the recession, you obviously have never seen the Post Hoc Ergo Proptor Hoc episode of Aaron Sorkin’s “The West Wing” (kinda surprising for a leftist apologist such as yourself).
Here’s a clue, numbnuts … circulation was plummeting long before the current recession because of a fundamental shift in consumer preference (i.e. more people are getting their news online now). The recession has only exacerbated the decline of the traditional media, but to assume that it caused it is misology.
Also, the last time we checked non-profits and not-for-profits got all sorts of government handouts and tax breaks, hence Obama’s “make sure it’s paid for” reference.
If you think that taxpayers won’t ultimately pay for this then you’re deluding yourself … perhaps intentionally.
Thanks for playing, though …
-FITS
P.S. – You did get one thing right, though. This damn skippy is the “kind of blog” Obama is talking about. And f*cking proud of it.
By What a waste September 21, 2009 at 12:21 pm
“Fits” … you really need to pay attention.
I did not say “declining viewership and sagging circulation in the media industry is solely attributable to the recession.”
I said that the financial woes that the newspaper industry is going through are due to the decline in advertising – which is a result of the recession.
Here, read it again: “the financial woes aren’t caused by declining viewership and sagging circulation. The woes are caused by the enormous decrease in advertising revenue due to the deepest recession since the great depression.”
Yes, readership and circulation of the printed product has been on a steady decline. But despite this, the newspaper industry as a whole still reported profit margins ranging from 17-20% until the recession.
“Fits” … you want to resort to name calling. Truth is, you come across like an idiot with a narrow mind and the opinion to match.
By Seymour Glass September 21, 2009 at 2:19 pm
@ WAW,
Traditional media is failing because more and more people have stopped reading print news (this trend began long before our current recesssion), and businesses don’t advertise where people don’t go.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/02/AR2005050201457.html
And whether you call it a tax break or a taxpayer-funded bailout, they are still improving their financial standing on the backs of other taxpayers. They would either get government handouts, or they wouldn’t hand over their taxes to the government. Just the same.
By cerius September 21, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Bambi gave over $650 million in bail-out funds to his rich, liberal Hollywood pals who helped him win the election.
Bambi’s rich, liberal newpaper buddies are a linin’ up at the trough for some more goodies, paid for by our children and grandchildren.
No wonder Bambi is front-page news every day…
By Pat Hendrix September 22, 2009 at 2:50 pm
The president has never suggest that one red cent will go to the press. Either you know this and decided to deceive your readers or you are too stupid to check your facts. Either way, not good.
And the president has said that he is unequivocally against the Fairness Doctrine. Yet here I am reading Fits saying just the opposite. And you know this. So, given that fact, I’m going to have to go with dishonest.
By Kathleen Evans September 22, 2009 at 9:40 pm
What I would like to know is, not matter if this is true or not, how many projects and companies are really needing bail-outs? And who is really getting the bail-outs? I think bail-outs should have been given to the tax-payers and not companies!