
Simply put, government intervention to prop up newspapers should not be a preferred option under any scenario.

So that’s what so disturbing about the U.S. Federal Trade Commission looking for ways to “support the reinvention of journalism,” according a report by The New York Times.
Possible measures to help the troubled U.S. news business include public subsidies, charity and stronger copyright protection. The first two measures should be dropped; the third one merits some consideration.
Nobody can deny that Internet alternatives and the Great Recession have taken a huge bite out of advertising and readership for traditional print newspapers which, for the most part, continue to struggle as they seek viable business models for online publishing.
From 2007 to 2009, newspaper industry revenue fell 30 percent in the United States, though much less internationally.

Not surprisingly, some 15,000 U.S. journalists were either laid off or bought out by employers as the recession’s grip tightened on American consumers since late 2007. Almost one in five journalists working for American newspapers in 2001 is no longer there, according to a 2009 report by the Pew Research Center, an independent, nonpartisan public opinion research organization that studies attitudes toward politics, the press and public policy issues.

In response to severe financial decline, many papers, especially the bigger metros, shrank the number of pages and sections, increased cover prices, and scaled back reporting.
Pick up your local paper today and it’s sure to be smaller,

Most publishers were content to sit back and let things unfold before the bust, with the notable exception of Gannett Co., America’s largest newspaper publisher, including USA Today.
While the average operating profit in 2009 for most papers was 12 percent, publicly-traded Gannett

The fact is fewer than half of all American adults now regularly read a daily newspaper. Recession, lifestyle and generational issues all factor into the swift decline of print media. Plus, newspaper executives have a well-earned reputation for making poor or questionable management decisions.
Why would government intervention make a difference?
The one exception for government oversight might be in copyright protection, especially with the Internet changing the rules of the game. Newspapers, the Associated Press, and Google have locked horns over establishing a balance between aggregation of credited content and outright lifting of material.
As Times reporter Eric Pfanner points out: “So far, newspapers have moved only halfheartedly to defend their copyrights online under existing legislation, because they have been held in thrall to the idea that giving away their content would make new revenue appear. Fortunately, this is now being reconsidered.’’
Public subsidies and charity aren’t solutions to what ails the newspaper industry.

News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch in December warned against the "heavy hand" of federal intervention,

If the U.S. government crosses the line between it and the Fourth Estate, through financial incentives to bail out a shaken industry, there’s no going back. An independent press, free to criticize, question and report, will be seriously hampered. Whose interests will be served? Not taxpayers, that much is certain.
Imagine if the U.S. government controlled reporting on the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Would the rest of the country fully grasp the scope of the crisis and its impact if it were not for the unfettered media, in all forms? Would we really know how helpless and clueless our big government is to manage affairs right here at home?
Newspapers will survive because most journalists are resilient, determined to get the full story and working to earn the public’s trust – despite stupid decisions by owners and executives, shifting public interest, and competing alternatives.
As someone once said, “The pen is mightier than the sword.”

As for me, I practice what I preach at writenowworks.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment