^ You haven't made any case as to how competition is bad. Schools actually do much better when they compete--this is how high performance (higher than the United States) is achieved in some countries. Are you unaware of this or are you just stupid?

And charities compete in a sense for dollars of giving individuals. If those charities aren't properly run, for example, people will stop giving their dollars. Are you daft or something--or just brainwashed?

9/21/2009 3:55:53 PM

Question: If the government gives a media outlet free money, do you think the media outlet will be for, against, or remain neutral? Any rational person knows the answer.......just want to see what you libs think.

9/21/2009 3:56:59 PM

Quote :

"And charitiesnon-profit newspapers compete in a sense for dollars of giving individuals and advertisers. If those charitiesnon-profit newspapers aren't properly run, for example, people will stop giving their dollars."

If charities can compete, why can't non-profit newspapers?

9/21/2009 3:59:57 PM

^ Charities compete--but more in the general sense--for scarce dollars to fund often worthwhile efforts such as helping to cure diseases, feeding the needy, and so on. What will not-for-profit newspapers be competing for exactly?



[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 4:10 PM. Reason : And keep in mind, competition is just one reason this is a bad idea.]

9/21/2009 4:09:10 PM

Being non-profit provides tax exemption. It doesn't exempt them from needing to bring in revenue. They will still have to compete for readership and advertising money.

9/21/2009 4:11:11 PM

^^ providing news isn't a worthwhile effort?

Non-profit newspapers would largely compete for the same thing for-profit newspapers do: money and readership.

So, what are your other reasons why allowing a newspaper to operate as a non-profit is bad?

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 4:16 PM. Reason : slow on the post...]

9/21/2009 4:14:29 PM

It's my position that competition would be reduced among the newspapers if they become 501 (c)(3) entities. I have generations of historical data to support my position and you have what, socialist fantasies of a Pravda-esque batch of newspapers run like ACORN?

Fucking great!

9/21/2009 4:20:31 PM

Quote :

"It's my position that competition would be reduced among the newspapers if they become 501 (c)(3) entities. I have generations of historical data to support my position and you have what, socialist fantasies of a Pravda-esque batch of newspapers run like ACORN? Fucking great! "

Why did you do that? We were having a civil post exchange and all of a sudden you open up the vitriol.

Why?

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 4:28 PM. Reason : ]

9/21/2009 4:26:25 PM

What the fuck was that rant about?

I want to know what this historical evidence is because already, we are already blessed with non-profit news publications that are out there competing for readers and advertising money.

What is this evidence?

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 4:30 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2009 4:27:37 PM

^^ Oh, get your panties out of a twist--that hardly reached vitriolic levels.

Newspapers Must Be Allowed To Fail

Quote :

"Our Joe Weisenthal warned you and now New York Times media columnist David Carr is catching on: Washington is inching closer to a newspaper bailout of some sort. First Senator John Kerry hosted a hearing on the "Future Of Journalism." Then, ending his keynote at the annual White House correspondents dinner last weekend, President Obama said "a government without newspapers, a government without a tough and vibrant media of all sorts is not an option for the United States of America.” Ack! We're not about to stock up on our supply of Lipton's or anything, but a newspaper bailout of any sort is a completely terrible idea. The reasons should be obvious, but just in case, here are a few of the easiest-to-remember reasons you can use on your hidebound, nostalgic friends: Hello! Newspapers are outdated businesses based on outdated tech. How outdated? Printing the New York Times costs twice as much as it would for the paper to send every subscriber a free Amazon Kindle. Despite that, the New York Times still prints away because it makes most of its profits from the physical paper because it can tell advertisers people read page C8 without having to show proof. On their own, newspapers have shown no ability to move online or develop sustainable post-monopoly businesses. Why should the government tip the competitive balance against media outlets -- yes, such as this one -- that are actually innovating new ways to spread news and show ads? Newspapers hurt the environment. The more newspapers die, the less trees have to. Also, newspaper delivery trucks don't exactly run on carbon-free cold fusion. Just because newspapers go away doesn't means sources will. Watergate broke because an FBI agent, aka Deep Throat, didn't like the way Nixon politicized the FBI -- not because Woodward and Bernstein sleuthed it out. Source will always find the biggest megaphone they can to get their views out. Newspapers aren't close to too big to fail. Reflections of a Newsosaur writes that newspapers "collectively employ a mere 0.2 percent of the nation’s labor force and generate only 0.36 percent of the gross national product." Tiny! Bonus arguments, in case your "friends" remain unconvinced: Newspapers only ever thrived because they were monopolies. 66% of people get their news from TV. Newspaper owners think Google is a parasite. Ask them when they last bought a paper, much less subscribed. A government subsidized "free press" isn't a "free press" at all."

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-to-tell-people-who-want-a-newspaper-bailout-2009-5

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 4:30 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2009 4:30:14 PM

WHERE IS THIS HISTORICAL EVIDENCE?

9/21/2009 4:31:02 PM

^ How many years has the US newspaper industry been run as not-for-profit?

9/21/2009 4:38:37 PM

So you don't have the historical evidence then do you? You are better than this liesaw.

Quote :

"It's my position that competition would be reduced among the newspapers if they become 501 (c)(3) entities. I have generations of historical data to support my position "

Quote :

"How many years has the US newspaper industry been run as not-for-profit?"

Where is this historical evidence, which would be entirely impossible to have because the US newspaper industry has not been run as a non-profit entity.

All you have is the misguided belief that just because something operated as something for years it is naturally better. If that were truly the case, the newspaper industry would not be dying and looking at going toward the non-profit method.

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 4:42 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 4:42 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2009 4:40:04 PM

Quote :

"^ How many years has the US newspaper industry been run as not-for-profit?"

hooksaw

Answer the question.

The newspaper industry operated profitably for generations until it failed to adapt--failed to stay competitive with other emerging entities. And many simply carried too much debt.

Quote :

"If that were truly the case, the newspaper industry would not be dying and looking at going toward the non-profit method."

nutsmackr

You're a fool. Many are looking to suck the government teat right now--they doesn't mean they're right or that it'll work in the long-term.

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 4:59 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2009 4:58:36 PM

If demand is lowered, supply is lowered.....it's economics 101.

Keeping a newspaper in business allows a demand/supply offset. This leads to more harm for other newspapers.

9/21/2009 5:04:01 PM

^^^^^^

Quote :

"Newspapers hurt the environment."

I don't have numbers, but I would imagine the environmental impact of newspapers is fairly marginal compared to other sources of negative environmental impact. I wouldn't hang my hat on this.

Quote :

"Just because newspapers go away doesn't means sources will."

True, but newspapers do provide an additional option for the would-be source. Also, not all sources rise to the level of national or international news; sources need local media outlets as well.

Quote :

"A government subsidized "free press" isn't a "free press" at all.""

When did non-profit become government subsidized?

Quote :

"Newspapers aren't close to too big to fail."

OK. How is this an argument against establishing a 501(3)(c) non-profit newspaper category?

----

All the others are just reasons why printed news is in decline. How will being a non-profit prevent these things from running their course?

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 5:08 PM. Reason : ]

9/21/2009 5:07:31 PM

Quote :

"How will being a non-profit prevent these make things from running their course better?"

It's you and your cohorts who are advocating a change from the status quo. Make you case concerning why not-for-profit newspapers are better.



[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 5:13 PM. Reason : And. . .go!]

9/21/2009 5:13:26 PM

I'm curious--who do you think my cohorts are and what do you think my position on establishing a non-profit 501(3)(c) newspaper is?

9/21/2009 5:17:13 PM

Quote :

"You haven't made any case as to how competition is bad. Schools actually do much better when they compete--this is how high performance (higher than the United States) is achieved in some countries. Are you unaware of this or are you just stupid? And charities compete in a sense for dollars of giving individuals. If those charities aren't properly run, for example, people will stop giving their dollars. Are you daft or something--or just brainwashed?"

Actually I was talking about things being run for-profit, if you go back and read what I wrote at the end of what I said. You just proved yourself exactly what we're getting at: that allowing papers to be run non-profit is not a bad thing, and plenty of non-profits compete as you said. I admit, I mixed up some terms back there, but what I said lines right fucking up with this drivel you nitwit (hey, you were the one that started calling names):

Quote :

"And also, how are newspapers being run as non-profits bad? Should we have a running policy of forcing all institutions to compete for profit? How about charities? Schools?"

I was criticizing the profit motive, competing for profit, not patronage and quality.

Quote :

"It's my position that competition would be reduced among the newspapers if they become 501 (c)(3) entities."

and yet you just admitted that non-profits compete amongst each other. Lol.

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 5:19 PM. Reason : ,]

9/21/2009 5:18:18 PM

hooksaw, just because you beat your dick every morning with sandpaper doesn't mean it is the best method to get off.

9/21/2009 5:19:21 PM

Can you explain how your post stating that non-profits competing successfully proves that non-profits can't compete successfully?

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 5:24 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2009 5:21:59 PM

^ Twist my words some more, sophist.

9/21/2009 6:18:09 PM

Quote :

"Schools actually do much better when they compete--this is how high performance (higher than the United States) is achieved in some countries. Are you unaware of this or are you just stupid? And charities compete in a sense for dollars of giving individuals. If those charities aren't properly run, for example, people will stop giving their dollars."

Quote :

"It's my position that competition would be reduced among the newspapers if they become 501 (c)(3) entities."

So were the schools and charities you were referring to for-profit? Otherwise, you just said that competition was good for one group of non-profits but not possible/probable to fail among another. Why? What differences make newspapers unable to survive under the models we see with non-profit schools or charities?

For the record, I support non-profit private schools...and voucher programs. Bet you weren't expecting that.

It's hilarious to watch you act like a angry provoked man alone fighting back the liberal hordes...when in fact you don't realize that people aren't always ideologically opposed to what you think, but rather they have the gall to point out your slip ups, inconsistencies, or just plain dumb posts. perhaps some of us want to save parts of our ideologies from people like you?

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 6:40 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2009 6:37:40 PM

Quote :

"the public desires no public watchdog, otherwise they'd still buy newspapers"

Or perhaps the newspapers are not providing the kind of insight which would warrant their purchase.

Quote :

"maybe we should privatize everything so pepsi cola can tell me how to feel"

How is Pepsi acting in it's own self interest any different than the government acting in it's own self interest? Sure, you can change your representative, senator or possibly President, but you have no effect on the thousands of bureaucrats who will continue to pump out self-serving press releases to guarantee their public jobs.

How is it that the left is so quick to dismiss the idea of pro-state propaganda during peace time being any less accurate than pro-state propaganda during war-time (or, for that matter, the inverse with the right)?

Quote :

"The market is good at allocating resources, but that doesn't change the fact that it's only as smart as the people acting within it, and unfortunately too many people are as irrational as lemmings. "

Perhaps, but there is precisely 0 evidence that a government of said lemmings would be any more rational in the allocation of resources.

Quote :

"how are newspapers being run as non-profits bad?"

Actually, a non-profit news paper would be a fine thing so long as it covered it's cost through private donations or subscriptions.

9/21/2009 10:14:30 PM

I would like to re-iterate my question: what current roadblocks prevent someone from starting a non-profit newspaper? I suspect none exist, since we have non-profits all over the place doing all kinds of work. So, again, why does this require an act of congress? Is not the Technician non-profit? Is not craigslist?

Is the conflict over turning bankrupt for-profit institutions into non-profit institutions? In that case, yes, I can see why you would need the government: in order to deprive the debt holders of their rights, as was done with GM.

9/21/2009 10:54:34 PM

Quote :

"A government subsidized "free press" isn't a "free press" at all.""

This would be my biggest problem.

Someone in here asked how non-profit equates to subsidized. I guess "subsidized" isn't the right word, but one might consider being tax-free as a sort of government subsidy. I see tons of avenues for gov't intervention in the press with this, such as calls that a specific newspaper isn't "educational enough," especially if said newspaper has been critical of a certain powerful public official.

Ultimately, though, i just don't see what about a newspaper should necessarily make it a non-profit, no questions asked, aside from the scant requirements in that quote above. Moreover, these companies won't really be acting as a non-profit normally does. They'll make tons of profit from ad-revenue if run properly. They just won't be taxed on it. What, specifically, about a newspaper should make them special in that regard?

The move seems more like a nod to big liberal donors than anything else. And while, yes, there are conservative newspapers, even big ones, that doesn't take away the fact that, by and large, print media companies tend to be liberal-dominated.

9/22/2009 4:49:54 AM