The article that spurred that comment has many other issues to consider besides that one, but after only reading the first paragraph or two, I was prompted to express my exasperation at the idea to publicly fund the dying print newspaper. Things go out of style for a reason. For example, the telegraph was replaced by the telephone. It's not that the telegraph was an important too of communication in its time, but the telephone was quicker and reached more people. Another example is the cell phone gradually replacing the cell phone.....or e-mail taking over snail mail. The examples are endless in a world of continuing innovation.
You think there are problems now with the mainstream media? Just wait. Columbia University President Lee Bollinger joins the drumbeat of those proposing fixes that are guaranteed to make the MSM much, much worse — and he wants to do it with your tax dollars.A very current and parallel (in some respects) example of the electronic/web medium replacing paper is tradition paper maps and Yahoo Maps! And eventually, GPS systems are going to take that over, too. As long as people are inventive, something is going to replace older means of the same task.
In a July 14th op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Bollinger argues that the time has come to rescue the declining fortunes of newspapers and broadcast news with “enhanced public funding for journalism.” He envisions the future of American journalism as a “mixed system,” part public, part private.
The reason, then, for wanting to subsidize newspapers would be to control the message. The article continues...
Otherwise, worries Bollinger, Americans might not get the news they need. Absent a pipeline of government money, he fears the Fourth Estate cannot continue to perform its fabled function as a watchdog, prowling the globe and speaking truth to power.There are so many things wrong with this. The "get the news they need" sticks out. Because, of course, they know better what we need. Moreover, if one thinks that separation of church and state is important due to the 1st ammendmendment, I think it's clear that there should be a separation of the press and government. As in so many things, they are trying to remove the checks and balances that make America the functioning democracy it's always been. You can't be a dictator with checks and balances.
Boy, I could go on and on. But I won't. I'm going to finish reading the article. Go ahead and read it too. The title is ominous, too: Next Up in Washington, a Media Czar?