A bailout for newspapers is a horrible idea

Several months ago, I predicted that the demise of newspapers would occur before the 2012 election. I also made the statement that some, if not all, newspapers were in the tank for Obama and the Democrats in general this past election cycle (more so than usual) because they figured they could get a handout from them.

Both comments were scoffed at. Both have been proven to be correct.

On Tuesday night, Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) introduced a bill that would provide federal funds to newspapers. Cardin's "Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.

Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax exempt, and contributions to support news coverage or operations could be tax deductible."

This is a terrible idea on a number of levels, both in terms of sheer economics and the role newspapers should play in a free society.

It's a plain fact that newspapers are struggling. The Houston Chronicle cut nearly 30 percent of its staff today and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution slashed similar number. Stories of large papers going bankrupt or to Web-only products. That's a shame, simply because of the historic role newspapers have played in the evolution of our society. But, honestly, they've only got themselves to blame.

The business model for newspapers is untenable and has been for some time. The increasingly leftist slant has turned off a large portion of potential readers and has cost them advertising. The options presented by the Internet have further cut into their reader base. And, honestly, a lot of journalism today isn't fact-based reporting, it's self-important, opinionated crap. That don't help.

So, let the process take its course. Let journalism evolve, as the society journalists are supposed to be serving has. It's the 21st century and papers are still acting like they're in the 1800s. They haven't adapted, so they need to either do so or die.

If this bill were to pass, newspapers would not only be truly meaningless but another albatross on the American taxpayer. Cardin claims that his plan is intended for smaller, community papers, but that's a bunch of crap. After all, who owns community newspapers? Large conglomerates, many of whom are led by a large, well-known big city daily. The Washington Post group, for example, could claim they're taking federal money to take care of the weeklies under its control and pump it right into the big paper. What's the government gonna do? Nothing. Also, there's nothing stopping larger papers (or groups of papers) from getting in on it, whether Cardin intends it for them or not.

If a paper was willing to agree to the terms laid out by Cardin's bill, they wouldn't even be worth wiping your backside with them. In a free society, a newspaper is supposed to be frequent critic, if not an opponent, of government. You can't do that if you're owned by the people you're supposed to be impartially covering! It's hard to have a free press when you're answering to the federal entity. So, even though the press is currently biased, papers taking money under the Cardin bill would not only be biased, they'd be propaganda organs for the feds.

Goodbye, First Amendment; hello, Pravda.

This bill is a horrible, stupid, very bad idea. Yes, it's a crying shame that newspapers are having a rough go; it's even worse to even consider the government bailing them out in exchange for federal regulation.

If you have an interest in a market economy and a free society (or just one or the other), you have to oppose this bill. It is a disgrace that mocks our historical tradition.