Newspapers are dead. I mean the kind that get ink on your hands. How do I know newspapers are dead? Because I started reading newspapers when I was 9 years old. I loved the NY Herald Tribune. Unfortunately The Herald shut down a couple of years later and I was forced to become a New York Times reader which was much more dry and boring. But I continued to read newspaper(s) every day for 40 years. And I haven’t read a (newsprint) newspaper for the last 5 years. That is why I know they are dead. They are going the way of music CDs. Remember them?
Rob Kall over on Huffpo has a great article about how the Feds could design a bailout plan for journalists rather than newspapers and generate a whole new paradigm for the news business and perhaps our economy in general. According to Kall, rather than the top-down approach being used to bailout banks and car-makers, the Feds should take lessons from Google and other new, inventive companies. Use a bottom-up approach to revive the news business:
The new American business model, the one that has proven to be fabulously successful even in these tough times, is based on bottom-up approaches. Google, Amazon, Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, to name a few, are all based on inviting the crowd into the business mix. Transparency is a big part of the new corporation and so is open sourcing of information — that means giving things away free.
I’m a firm believer that a strong media, and that means strong investigative journalism, is essential for democracy and efficient operation of both government and corporations. Investigative journalism digs and exposes. That’s an incredibly valuable function. It’s so valuable, it’s worth investing in … with the expectation of solid returns on that investment.
I say, instead of taking a top down approach and giving huge chunks of money to a handful of failing newspapers, (the same approach that was not very effective, in the long run, in dealing with the bank liquidity crisis), have government fund journalism and journalists. Take a bottom up approach and give the money to tens of thousands of journalists — writers and photographers and videographers. That will take huge financial pressure off the newspapers, give them a lot more content they can use, and help expand the growing blogosphere, where content is usually free and millions of people are operating small businesses with the potential to grow. Small business is where the most job creation has always flourished and small businesses are not too big to die.
Part of the reason the newspaper business is in trouble (besides the internet effect) is the same reason the banks are in trouble. When you have monopolization of an industry, inevitably competition and innovation decline. Without competition and innovation, it is difficult to put out a good product or service over time. The organization gets lazy and uncreative since there is no imperative to be better than the competitor down the street.
The modern day mega-corporations are the entities that are too large to ultimately NOT fail. If our government does not end up breaking them up under anti-trust laws, they will eventually fall from their own bureaucratic inefficiencies anyway. The latter result though will probably cause much more harm to “we the people” than the former.
So let’s start breaking up the “too big to fail” oligopolies before these babies get thrown out with the bathwater. And let’s start bailing out the the bottom rather than the top and create a new business climate that rewards innovation rather than monopolization.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Creating the Desire for News (conversationagent.com)
Believe it or not, John, I mostly agree with your thoughts here.
Okay, when you get up off the floor we can continue
Seriously, the print media especially should be more localized and actually cover news, both sides if political without favor to either, except maybe editorials.
Issues of importance to our community remain ignored while we read of sensationalized accounts of hearings we have no control over.
For example, did the Columbian cover Brian Baird’s recent no vote on a bill that included funding for two Chehalis River Basin flood control projects within the 3rd Congressional District because he didn’t have time to read them? I don’t subscribe any longer, but i didn’t see anything in the online site.
While he lists it as taking a stand on his 72-hour proposal, many wonder why he didn’t take the stand on the Stimulus Bail-Out Bill or Cap & Trade, which he also did not read and were for Billions of more dollars.
Democrat or Republcian and however we may feel about his action, shouldn’t readers within the southern portion of the 3rd District have the opportunity to know about this too, with the election so close?
Lew,
Thanks for agreeing with me on this.
I remember a time when government actually tried at least to help people. It seems ever since greed became good and taxes became bad, our government has become, as Reagan liked to say, “the problem”.
We can’t and don’t need to disagree on everything, John. We can have our differences, but in the end, we are both Americans who want only what is best for all of us.
Your words point out what many others don’t fully realize about most conservatives. We are not anti-government or anti-taxes, just where they become excessive to the point of doing harm.
The greed seems to be shared across the spectrum also. Instead of seeking balance and what is best for the country, partisanship gets in the way and and individuals seem to do more for personal wealth than good for the country. Examples, Randy ‘Duke’ Cunningham and William Jefferson.
And then there are those like Michael Moore, who readily condemns capitalism, but draws million of dollars doing it.
We will continue to disagree on many things, mostly how to achieve a shared goal, but where we can agree, we will mutually state so.
Since you brought him up, I especially agree with the last line of this quote below from a Michael Moore piece yesterday. Moore earns millions of dollars and also tries to do good in the world. There are many others I can think of that earn millions of dollars and do great harm in the world. Bet he would also favor a tax increase on the wealthy (himself). I have not seen Moore’s latest documentary, but I would guess he still favors capitalism, just not the unregulated, “robber baron” type of capitalism which has been prevalent since the baby boomers came of age
I have tried very hard to not be too critical of Obama, there are enough of us already doing that. And he also has worked tirelessly to advance his agenda against a media noise machine that is mostly out to help him fail. It is still a wonderful experience to be able to watch our President without turning him off after 60 seconds in anger, disgust and/or disappointment. Nixon’s televised talks to the nation were great and important even if you didn’t agree with him. So it is also with President Obama.
Great presidents are not great the minute they step into the Oval Office. They rise up to the task that is handed to them over time.
John, I don’t know just what “good” Michael Moore has done with his faux documentaries and amassed wealth, often twisting the truth, but I’ll take your word that he has done some, if you say so.
To me, someone of wealth doing good would be like former Price Is Right Host, Bob Barker, giving $3 Million of his money to help fund a new hospital for our wounded recently did.
Then again, money isn’t always the only thing people can do that is good.
I would like to ask you about one thing in your words I find troubling, “I have tried very hard to not be too critical of Obama.”
Why? We were often critical of President Bush as we should be when they need criticized. Obama is no different.
The simple fact of being elected is not proper for awarding the Nobel Prize, as that is not the requirements laid out by Alfred Nobel in his will.
Most troubling to me from attitudes as that coming from European nations, is all the fuss over his race. When do they elect a Black person to their governments?
I am especially bothered that it has been nearly a month and a half since General McChrystal requested reinforcements for Afghanistan, the war Obama himself says “we must not lose,” and no decisions has been made.
In the mean time we have Troops fighting with morale declining rapidly and Obama sending out indicators of including the Taliban in going after Al Qaeda. Does he not know that it was the Taliban who allowed Al Qaeda to operate and train from Afghanistan in the first place?
Since McChrystal made his request over 50 Troops have died. He claimed six months ago he had a strategy for winning in Afghanistan that was being implemented then. And now, he says he must review that before deciding?
You also said, “media noise machine that is mostly out to help him fail.”
You’re going to have to show me that as all I see is a media fawning all over him.
You also said, “Great presidents are not great the minute they step into the Oval Office. They rise up to the task that is handed to them over time.”
Actually, it is history that makes one a great, good, mediocre or poor president.
I know you disagree, but Bush did rise up where others did not and took the fight back to the terrorists after attacking us over 3 decades. He took bold stands and did not waver under public pressure, which was often whipped up by the very ones demanding he do something after 911.
No, he will not be judged as a great president, but I am fully confident that after we are gone, historians will look back and see just what he was handed and how he handled it and will judge him a lot more fairly than we do today.
Likewise with Obama. But, if doesn’t do more than just make speeches and soon, he runs the risk of being down at the level of Jimmy Carter.
The worst thing the leadership of your party is doing is trying to paint any disagreement with him as “racist.” The term is getting so over used it is losing its meaning and I fear that true racism will end up being ignored in the days ahead.
Sorry, but I don’t see Obama rising to any task just yet. I hope he does soon, for the sake of our country.