1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Massachusetts Bill Set to Subsidize Newspaper Subscriptions

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by justgladtobehere, Feb 8, 2023.

  1. JimmyHoward33

    JimmyHoward33 Well-Known Member

    Well technically they’re subsidizing the taxpayer as opposed to say a farm payment that goes direct to the business.

    I’m not saying its a good idea but its far from the worst thing I’ve ever heard as far as propping up this industry
     
  2. justgladtobehere

    justgladtobehere Well-Known Member

    It's awful. it's propping up a dying industry without consideration of which paper may actually benefit. The Glob does fine, why should it get the same benefits as the Standard-Times?
     
  3. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    There’s nothing enshrined in the Constitution about the importance of a free and independent farming sector.
     
  4. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    All the mental gymnastics in the world can’t turn “free and independent” into “subsidized and legislated.” That would be newspeak.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2023
    SixToe likes this.
  5. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    The BBC manages to produce some pretty good journalism.

    And the US government has been tangled up in journalism for a long time. Back to the creation of the FCC and beyond.

    And subsidizing local news organizations in order to encourage a diversity of journalism was an idea first floated long ago.

    https://www.oah.org/tah/issues/2018/august/the-inadequacy-of-american-press-freedom/

    New Dealers sought to reform the economic structure of the newspaper industry so that a greater diversity of newspapers could exist and a greater range of information could reach the public.

    What's worse? That William Randolph Hearst - or the 21st century corporate oligolopy equivalent - controls the news? Or that government deals out some firewalled funding? Or that local news collapses entirely?

    These are very hard questions. In the current historic and economic moment, freedom of the press also includes the freedom of the press to fail.

    I favor non-profits, but they may not scale to the smallest markets.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2023
    JimmyHoward33 likes this.
  6. justgladtobehere

    justgladtobehere Well-Known Member

    It's a business. Government shouldn't be giving the companies money.
     
  7. Regan MacNeil

    Regan MacNeil Well-Known Member

    Subsidy Tracker

    Subsidy Tracker

    Try a different argument. There are plenty.
     
  8. justgladtobehere

    justgladtobehere Well-Known Member

    So what? The government fucked up in the past and now it's okay to keep fucking up?
     
  9. Regan MacNeil

    Regan MacNeil Well-Known Member

    They're literally "fucking up" all across American industry to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars every year and this is your bridge too far?
     
  10. justgladtobehere

    justgladtobehere Well-Known Member

    No. It is bad, the same as all the other direct subsidizes.
     
  11. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    It's not a direct subsidy.

    It's a tax credit to subscribers.
     
    JimmyHoward33 likes this.
  12. justgladtobehere

    justgladtobehere Well-Known Member

    Semantics. It's paying people for buying the newspaper. The newspaper ends up getting more because of the government paying people.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page