Comments on: What happens when the Fourth Estate becomes a subsidiary of Big Government?

By: ENDANGERED SPECIES: TRADITIONAL MEDIA AND JOURNALISM | Passing Thru

ENDANGERED SPECIES: TRADITIONAL MEDIA AND JOURNALISM | Passing Thru — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 04:39:05 +0000

[...] etc., the traditional media appeals to legislative bodies for a piece of the financial bailout. Ed Morrissey wants to know what happens when the Fourth Estate becomes a government subsidiary? What [...]

By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Newspaper bailouts coming to Connecticut?

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Newspaper bailouts coming to Connecticut? — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:17:42 +0000

[...] wrote a month ago about the possibility of government bailouts for failing newspapers, and in Connecticut it appears [...]

By: Spiritk9

Spiritk9 — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:31:03 +0000

Quietly buy your weapons, ammo, but not all at once. Have some sense about it. Store them properly and not all in the same place.

If they come to collect them, just say you sold them to the guy down the street right before he moved, or start your war right then and there.

By: benny shakar

benny shakar — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 04:23:07 +0000

Armstrong Williams!
Michael McManus!
Maggie Gallagher!

By: Entelechy

Entelechy — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 02:48:56 +0000

What happens when the Fourth Estate becomes a subsidiary of Big Government?

One set of whores is beholden to another set of whores.

The fools are us.

By: Wine_N_Dine

Wine_N_Dine — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 02:48:38 +0000

A buddy of mine is a camerman for CNN. I asked him if his paycheck comes directly from the Obama campaign or does the DNC handle the payroll processing.

He laughed and said he’s going to use that one at work.

By: Wyatt Wingfoot

Wyatt Wingfoot — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:29:03 +0000

Up is down. Good is bad. Death is life. B.S. is pumpkin pie.
Get used to it.

By: bryan2369

bryan2369 — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:26:42 +0000

MSM to the population: All the news WE see fit to tell you.

By: SuperCool

SuperCool — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:16:37 +0000

What happens is NBC literally becomes The National Broadcasting Company…

Personally, not a fan of joining the club of nations with the oft quoted “State News Agencies”, like China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, etc…

By: Branch Rickey

Branch Rickey — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:12:45 +0000

What happens when the Fourth Estate becomes a subsidiary of Big Government?

UM, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA GETS ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

Just my guess.

Achtung! “Branch Rickey” may be “gone” for a while to an “educational facility.” /not being sarcastic

By: ddrintn

ddrintn — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:11:23 +0000

To allow the MSM to become stooges of Obama is to presume they aren’t stooges of Obama now. The MSM is an arm of the DNC, has been for decades. At least now when someone says NY Times is a fully owned subsidiary of the DNC, it will actually be so.

angryed on December 1, 2008 at 2:37 PM

True. They might as well make it official. It’s not as if the MSM have their precious credibility to worry about. Credibility is to the MSM as virginity is to a whore: something they lost long ago and ain’t gettin’ back.

By: gekkobear

gekkobear — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:03:26 +0000

What about my buggy whip manufacturing company? When are we getting a bailout to avoid going under in these hard economic times.

By: bryanmyrick

bryanmyrick — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:33:52 +0000

This process began in a small way when the government initiated taking ownership positions in banks. Banks are, themselves, investors and own shares of media companies and newspapers. Has anyone put together any numbers yet about what the government actually has its fingers in now? Some might make the argument that the government only has minority interests in banks. In many cases, organized crime only takes minority interests in businesses, but with their 'powers' of enforcement they can 'influence' the operations of those businesses as if they were a majority. Unequal Time

By: Laura in Maryland

Laura in Maryland — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:09:17 +0000

Where are the enviro-nazis on this. How can Obambi support the murder of millions of trees that are sacrificed on the alter of corporate greed. I think we should communicate by drum circle and “smoke” signals, man.

I can’t believe the stupid lefty MSM thought that the KOS kids, poor urban people, migrant workers, and all their other special constituencies were going to subscribe to the New York Times in droves. I’m shocked, shocked I say!

By: DL13

DL13 — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:56:54 +0000

No subsidies for Democratic party newspapers. Let the papers that will tell the truth rise out of the ashes….

By: JackOfClubs

JackOfClubs — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:49:46 +0000

Liberals argue that we need public schools because and educated electorate is necessary to democracy. My favorite reductio ad absurdam argument is that democracy also requires an informed electorate, but we don’t let the governments run the newspapers. That always used to shut them up.

Guess I’ll to find a new argument…

By: Dr. Dog

Dr. Dog — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:27:55 +0000

Gee Ed, good post. We posed that question on our blog nearly 3 weeks ago though — http://thirdpipe.com/2008/11/13/fat-lady-arrives-in-may-at-6th-st-and-8th-ave-ny/

By: justfinethanks

justfinethanks — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:25:16 +0000

To answer your question, you can be successful in the free market and damaging at the same time. Consider sex trafficking, porn, drugs, etc. They are all very successful.

Then I suppose we are on the same page. The Austrian argument has always been that profit motive will always help the public. Like car companies that want to make money will strive to create safer, more fuel efficient cars than what other people are making. They make money, we get better cars, everyone wins. But it doesn’t always work like that.

My personal theory is that news networks were in the tank for Obama because that’s where the ratings were. People were just more interested in the new guy, and wanted to learn more about him, so they tuned in whenever people were talking about Obama. MSNBC and NBC have GM shareholders to answer to, and didn’t want to have to offer an apologetic note along with the quarterly report as to why they chose “balance” over attracting advertisers.

By: Akzed

Akzed — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:25:03 +0000

Right. Govt ownership of dying newspapers will, what, force people to read them?!

By: Seven Percent Solution

Seven Percent Solution — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:22:06 +0000

Be careful what you ask for………….

By: malclave

malclave — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:20:00 +0000

I’m not sure “Pravda” is quite the right analogy.

Sounds more like MiniTru to me.

He who controls the past, controls the present.
He who controls the present, controls the future.

By: hawksruleva

hawksruleva — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:17:19 +0000

Chris Matthews is a millionaire. Ed is not. Does this mean that Chris’s information is more valuable to the public? And if you don’t think so, doesn’t this mean that it is simultaneously possible to be a success in the free market while being damaging to the public?

justfinethanks on December 1, 2008 at 3:49 PM

The Free Market certainly doesn’t prevent damaging businesses from profiting. Ask Big Tobacco. Or your local crack dealer ;-) But it’s a complicated process (which is precisely why government intervention is bad, the law of unintended consequences pops up every time).

For starters, capitalism requires accurate information. Crack users aren’t fully aware of the dangers that their products pose. Big Media clearly has an advantage here. They don’t often write stories about how their audience and advertiser bases are both shrinking ;-)

Then there’s the monopoly issue, which I pointed out earlier. Big Media doesn’t exist in a pure free market. So they’re insulated somewhat from choice, which is capitalism’s main mechanism. The quality of most newspaper reporting eroded after the typical 2-paper towns became 1-paper towns. But with only 1 paper, what choice do readers have? More and more, they choose to read no paper at all.

Lastly, I think capitalism is exerting pressure on media to change. NY Times stock is at junk status. They can’t survive for long like that. If they choose to provide more un-biased, high-quality reporting, then capitalism will have made a better product. If it fails, then the free market will replace it, so again capitalism will be proven.

I think a lot of folks will be shocked at the speed with which Media companies could collapse in the next 2-5 years.

By: Angry Dumbo

Angry Dumbo — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:11:01 +0000

What happens? We stop watching, but we were doing that anyway. Olbermann’s lame would-be Murrow, is a sad reminder that in our Oprah centered world of self worship, even news reporters cannot resist the temptation to become part of the story.

By: theotherKate

theotherKate — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:00:41 +0000

Not necessarily a public good, but what people want to consume, or what they are able to consume. In the marketplace, Chris Matthews’ information is more valuable to the public than Ed’s. It is more accessible and more consumed. Do I agree with him? No. I think he’s biased. You seem to be saying that since he is successful in the free market, he can’t be biased. You can be both at the same time if that’s the only thing that people have access to, or if they are accustomed to consuming it. To answer your question, you can be successful in the free market and damaging at the same time. Consider sex trafficking, porn, drugs, etc. They are all very successful.

By: allrsn

allrsn — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:59:28 +0000

allrsn on December 1, 2008 at 3:55 PM

OPPS