Journalism informs the populace, which is vital to a legitimate democracy. If journalistic outfits go under the only source of information many people would have would be the government itself. The government would be able to manipulate public opinion to it's own ends whereas journalism is objective, in theory at least.
Journalism informs the populace, which is vital to a legitimate democracy. If journalistic outfits are bailed out by the government, the integrity of journalism would be compromised and information would end up coming from the government itself. The government would be able to manipulate public opinion to its own ends whereas journalism should be objective, in theory at least.
(@ErmanDown who I hope will forgive the slight satire)
The government has no business bailing out anything.
Of course not, the government shouldnt have to subsidize journalism at the expense of taxpayers who most likely dont even watch them.
The government has been bailing out a lot of things it shouldn't be bailing out. Journalism is one of those things it simply shouldn't be bailing out. This might cause journals to be regulated by government, and this might hamper our rights to free speech. The information market can instead turn to the Internet, where little investment is needed for profit.
Major news networks and newspapers might go under without financial assistance, but any journalistic organization dependent upon government dollars can't be considered an objective source of information. In the age of the Internet, with social media and YouTube on the rise, as well as the millions of blogs out there, journalism is becoming somewhat grass roots anyway.
A journalist is supposed to be neutral, or at least have the appearance of that. Government money could turn journalism into a propaganda machine, instead of a reporter of facts. If journalism is struggling, then they need to figure out what they have to do to fix themselves, or else. If they sink, then it's their own fault.
Bailouts haven't proved themselves to be effective, and many of the companies that have been bailed out to date played a significant role in the downturn of the American economy. America is falling behind because it doesn't innovate anymore and because the government mismanages its money. Bailing out journalism when the public is turning away from traditional print media as a news source would be throwing tax dollars in the trash.
When government, any government, gets involved in journalism, they eventually start to control the news. In some other countries, the journalists are just part of the state and show the state view. NPR is a good example in the U.S., they should not get any government funding, but should stand on their own like all the rest.
The government should not bail out journalism, because a bailout would be tantamount to buying propaganda. For journalism to be impartial, it must be free from government influence. Further, journalism is a commercial enterprise and should stand or fall on its own merit. If existing forms of journalism fail, the government should allow that failure, simply because one form will be replaced by another.
I am a firm believer that the government should have limits on how much our lives are controlled by them. Bailing out companies or professions is one of the things that they should stay away from. I feel it was a big mistake that they used our taxpayer money to bail out the auto industry as well as the banking industry. In life if you make a mistake you have to pay for it and these companies made large mistakes. Journalism is a different situation, however, they should have seen what could happen and planned for it accordingly.