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.
Many journalism entities are private, for profit companies or organizations. They should remain free to print what they like. The involvement of the government into the private media domain would seem to have a tendency for them to be less objective in fear of what the receiving government dictates as to content.
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.
All journalist don't need bailouts. There are reasons why the American people are not buying media today. They have lost faith in what the media is selling us. What is wrong with this country? I can't even believe we are debating such a silly notion. When I was child only places like Russia had state sponsored news. Look at how far America has fallen. It isn't pretty.
No, the government should not bail out journalism because than they would print whatever the government tells them to print so it would never be unbiased and fair like real journalism is supposed to be. If they can't make money they should go out of business, why reward another failing industry. Keep government out of all private business because that is how free enterprise and capitalism works.
Technology has changed so much that people no longer need to go to the newsstands or book stores to get their information. Everything is basically on the net. We live in an instant society and people want their news instantly. Journalist need to keep up with the demand. Offering online magazine subscriptions, newspaper, book, etc.
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.
When I make a mistake or a bad decision, nobody offers me millions of dollars for my stupidity. If journalism companies cannot offer a product that consumers want, then why should they be rewarded for their poor performance? If government bails them out, it is only a license to make the same poor choices in the future. It does not make sense to reward bad performance. If they fail, they fail. Rewarding bad judgment only reinforces that bad judgment.
Journalism like any other business enterprise run in a capitalist system must be held accountable only to the consumers of their product. If the people, for whatever reason, no longer wish to consume this product, and this product no longer produces sufficient revenue to sustain itself, the journalistic market should cease to exist in its present form. If journalism, newspapers, and the like were to be held accountable to government agencies, I believe it would be inevitable that the government would then influence the news reported. This is harmful both to the idea of a free press and the free market principles our country is based upon.
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)
Changes take place in the world over time. Journalism is becoming archaic. Technology has advanced to the point where journalism may not be needed in the future. The news will not end just because journalism ends. Network news and online news will still keep the public informed. Not all businesses should be bailed out by the government. Some should be allowed to die if they are no longer needed.
Internet media will continue to play the evolving nature of journalism. Rookies, and amateurs are now able to express opinions which weren't able to a while back. So in the case of a government bailout, one cannot go with this because it will not spell the end of the people of this country in the terms of journalism.
Should the government pour billions of dollars into bringing back bell-bottom pants or nylon leisure suits? Should the government set up a fund to compensate the companies who made 8-track tape players that went out of business? Markets evolve as our technology evolves. The downside to capitalism is that their is a strong price point motivation for many products due to the masses of consumers now being at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum. We want cheap, but reasonably good. Unfortunately it is China that is meeting our consumer demands instead of our own country. Now the Internet is unfortunately replacing journalism. Further unfortunate is that we will get what we asked for.
The government bailing out journalism would be the worst thing that could happen. It would then promote the idea that the government would want to control the media. Government would then want to put restrictions on those they bailed out, which would end up being a controlled-media society, and we have a first amendment to live by.
Like a child on Halloween with an eager hand extended awaiting those savory treats, it seems today that everyone in society is actively seeking government (taxpayer) subsidized handouts and bailouts. Personal responsibility and self reliance are virtues that seem to have gone the way of the dinosaur. The notion of bailing out the media is ludicrous and absurd and represents yet another example of the rise of the ?Nanny? State. The core element of free media is complete independence from government in order to ensure transparency of government while forcing accountability. The day government bails out the media, the press can no longer be considered free, but rather a propaganda arm of the government. After all, what media outlet would dare bite the hand that feeds them by reporting in a less than favorable manner towards any government entity or individual?
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.
Not only is the government bailout option inefficient, costly, and not competent to run private sector industries, giving the government control over the press is dangerous and turns our free country into one controlled by politicians who will exploit that power to their own end, influencing many lives for their own purposes. Without freedom in journalism (controlled by the private sector)we lose what the United States of America is all about.
In times like the ones that we are currently living, it is hard to see a reason why business gets money, but yet I cant get a job. Or why is it that I can't get a loan for school, but "the man" gets a second chance? I do not think that the government should be using a bailout to fix what is happening to journalism.
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.
If the government bailed out journalism then it would be delaying the inevitable shift from printed news to the internet or other technologies. The newspaper is on its last leg and shouldn't be maintained. Additionally, it's a good thing that they are so that we are not cutting down so many trees to provide paper for newspapers and destroying the earth.
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.
Of course not, the government shouldnt have to subsidize journalism at the expense of taxpayers who most likely dont even watch them.
Any company, including journalism, which runs its activities in a manner that drives it to fail should suffer the consequences of those actions. They should have to close their "doors" or file for bankruptcy. Bailing out a company only allows them to commit the same errors again. It shows that there are no real consequences to making bad professional decisions as long as you're a large company. That shouldn't be an excuse to let companies make negative decisions. All companies should have to learn from their mistakes or pay the consequences.
The government has no business bailing out anything.
The government should not bail out journalism because no industry deserves a bail out. If your business requires a bail out then you do not have a profitable business model and your company should shut down because it is not profitable. Having tax payers fund your business shows the public that you should not be in business in the first place because a business that needs government help is nothing more than a business that is a welfare recipient.
Journalists lost support because they failed to do their true job. When newspapers focused too much on ads for their funding they let their watchdog status - and true importance - slip away. I say let 'em go. Interactive online communities have supplanted them and have done so in part because people lost their faith in journalists to tell us what we need to know. Major stories still carry weight and journalism can rally, but it can't do so if it's primary value is supporting the status quo - what the heck do I need a paper for if it's only going to tell me bs and fail to dig into things we really need to know?
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.
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.