There now is a web site called Public Policy and Funding the News. They argue for Government funding of newspapers. We have made arguments against this several times in the past but now they claim support of the Postal Service, The IRS, the FCC and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
They contend:
As policymakers debate how to respond to the fast decline of the news business, we offer the following principles as guidance:
• First and foremost, do no harm. A cycle of powerful innovation is under way. To the extent possible, government should avoid retarding the emergence of new models of newsgathering.
• Second, the government should help promote innovation, as it did when the Department of Defense funded the research that created the Internet or when NASA funded the creation of satellites that made cable TV and direct radio and TV possible.
• Third, for commercial media, government-supported mechanisms that are content-neutral – such as copyright protections, postal subsidies and taxes – are preferable to those that call upon the government to fund specific news outlets, publications or programs.
However policymakers proceed, they should do so based on facts rather than myths. The government has always supported the commercial news business. It does so today. Unless the government takes affirmative action, though, the level of support is almost certain to decline at this important time in the history of journalism.
As we have argued before, the news business is changing as a result of the media used to transfer information. In a McLuhan like manner we are moving from printed word to a variety of media the IPad being just another step along the path.
As to the Government funding the Internet (ARPA Net) and satellites, perhaps a check on history would help. The Government funded ARPA to build a network for military purposes and ARPA a Vannevar Bush creation from WW II was the catalyst since it interfaced with universities. Satellites for commercial use were developed commercially by a public company called Comsat, I was one of the designers of Intelsat V while at Comsat. At best the FCC tried to stop everything so why them?
These folks in my opinion based upon the reality of facts seem to be way off base and one wonders who is funding this effort and why?
They go on and state:
However policymakers proceed, they should do so based on facts rather than myths. The government has always supported the commercial news business. It does so today. Unless the government takes affirmative action, though, the level of support is almost certain to decline at this important time in the history of journalism.
1. The government should find ways to make sure that reporters, news organizations and other content creators are paid for work that might otherwise be used without permission or compensation (which is one reason why the founders provided for copyright laws in the Constitution).
2. Most government funding should be indirect, rather than direct (as it is through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and through participating public radio and television stations).
3. Where possible government funding should be distributed according to a formula rather than as a direct subsidy for particular news outlets (as is the case with tax breaks and postal subsidies).
4. The government can play an important role by investing in technology and other innovations, as it did when it supported research on transistors, on satellite technology and on the Internet.
Above all, we urge an honest debate that recognizes the vital role that the government has played throughout our history and that it continues to play today. It would be a public tragedy to wake up one day and discover that news outlets are in even deeper trouble because hundreds of millions of dollars of public support had disappeared while no one was watching.
The Government did NOT support transistors. They were developed on private, albeit monopoly funds, at Bell Labs, a mile from my home! History and facts seem really to get lost here!
The terrifying question is who selects what news reporters to fund! This may very well go against the First Amendment. This in my opinion seems to get worse by the word!
They contend:
As policymakers debate how to respond to the fast decline of the news business, we offer the following principles as guidance:
• First and foremost, do no harm. A cycle of powerful innovation is under way. To the extent possible, government should avoid retarding the emergence of new models of newsgathering.
• Second, the government should help promote innovation, as it did when the Department of Defense funded the research that created the Internet or when NASA funded the creation of satellites that made cable TV and direct radio and TV possible.
• Third, for commercial media, government-supported mechanisms that are content-neutral – such as copyright protections, postal subsidies and taxes – are preferable to those that call upon the government to fund specific news outlets, publications or programs.
However policymakers proceed, they should do so based on facts rather than myths. The government has always supported the commercial news business. It does so today. Unless the government takes affirmative action, though, the level of support is almost certain to decline at this important time in the history of journalism.
As we have argued before, the news business is changing as a result of the media used to transfer information. In a McLuhan like manner we are moving from printed word to a variety of media the IPad being just another step along the path.
As to the Government funding the Internet (ARPA Net) and satellites, perhaps a check on history would help. The Government funded ARPA to build a network for military purposes and ARPA a Vannevar Bush creation from WW II was the catalyst since it interfaced with universities. Satellites for commercial use were developed commercially by a public company called Comsat, I was one of the designers of Intelsat V while at Comsat. At best the FCC tried to stop everything so why them?
These folks in my opinion based upon the reality of facts seem to be way off base and one wonders who is funding this effort and why?
They go on and state:
However policymakers proceed, they should do so based on facts rather than myths. The government has always supported the commercial news business. It does so today. Unless the government takes affirmative action, though, the level of support is almost certain to decline at this important time in the history of journalism.
1. The government should find ways to make sure that reporters, news organizations and other content creators are paid for work that might otherwise be used without permission or compensation (which is one reason why the founders provided for copyright laws in the Constitution).
2. Most government funding should be indirect, rather than direct (as it is through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and through participating public radio and television stations).
3. Where possible government funding should be distributed according to a formula rather than as a direct subsidy for particular news outlets (as is the case with tax breaks and postal subsidies).
4. The government can play an important role by investing in technology and other innovations, as it did when it supported research on transistors, on satellite technology and on the Internet.
Above all, we urge an honest debate that recognizes the vital role that the government has played throughout our history and that it continues to play today. It would be a public tragedy to wake up one day and discover that news outlets are in even deeper trouble because hundreds of millions of dollars of public support had disappeared while no one was watching.
The Government did NOT support transistors. They were developed on private, albeit monopoly funds, at Bell Labs, a mile from my home! History and facts seem really to get lost here!
The terrifying question is who selects what news reporters to fund! This may very well go against the First Amendment. This in my opinion seems to get worse by the word!
Posts
