Email This to a Friend
And Now … A Newspaper Bailout !?
The Philadelphia Inquirer is asking the governor for $10 million. And they're not the only ones with their hands out.
When the doors to the Federal Reserve’s money vault swung wide open and the bailouts started, my fear was that the doors would never be able to close again. Although I stopped believing in the tooth fairy at the age of six, everyone else seems to expect to find free money under their pillow. Corporations, in their effort to secure welfare, remind me of the crowd in front of the Walmart store that trampled a man to death on Black Friday. It is all about greed and nothing about consequence
I was still surprised to see someone in the newspaper industry asking for a handout from the government. Brian Tierney, publisher of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News, has asked Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell for a $10 million bailout for his Philadelphia Media Holdings. Tierney is currently in a tight spot because the bonds of his holding company missed their June interest payment.
The newspapers of Philadelphia are not the only newspapers with their hands out. Connecticut Assemblyman Frank Nicastro is petitioning the state government to provide funds to save the Bristol Press, covering the city of Bristol with a population of 61,000. Maybe my loyalties to Philadelphia are showing, but I do not understand the necessity of a paper serving a community of 61,000 people.
Although they have brought this cataclysm on themselves, I do have some sympathy for the newspaper industry. The internet, the invention of which nobody could have predicted, has decimated the newspaper industry. Like many others, I prefer to read by pointing and clicking for free rather than paying to get my hands dirty with newsprint so that I can read the same material. I also hate the clutter of newspapers in my house.
Although many bloggers disparage the mainstream media, I think that they are essential to preserving our democracy. Someone has to actually go out and report the news that bloggers sit home and carp about.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Laura Goldman worked on Wall Street for 25 years for such firms as Merrill Lynch and Paine Webber. She now owns her own money management firm, LSG capital, in Tel Aviv, Israel.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
23 Comments
1. Typewriter_King:The bulk of newspaper reporting comes free press releases, telephone calls, and public records, anyway. I can do most of the work on a morning without leaving my chair. I can embed stories from ‘The Newroom’(a once great service that seems to have dropped text) that collects from a myriad of syndication sources. Or I can build a paper on Net Vibes or Pageflakes just as easily.
Newspapers are just a needless middleman that be replaced fairly effortlessly. I could probably setup my own version of Breitbart.com in an hour, and by the end of a day, have all the contact information to cover local news.
Feb 20, 2009 - 2:24 am 2. Bilgeman:Ms. Goldman
If they sold a product or service that people would willingly buy, they wouldn’t need a subsidy.
It is not, and should not be, the function of the government to rescue an organization from its own failed business model in ANY field of endeavor, but especially one as sensitive as the press.
As it is, I reckon this duck won’t fly:
“Section 7. Freedom of Press and Speech; Libels
The printing press shall be free to every person who may undertake to examine the proceeding of the Legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury; and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.”
from:
Feb 20, 2009 - 3:26 am 3. Thomas Grady:http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/VC/visitor_info/creating/constitution.htm
Ms. Goldman said: “Although many bloggers disparage the mainstream media, I think that they are essential to preserving our democracy. Someone has to actually go out and report the news that bloggers sit home and carp about.”
Come on Ms. Goldman. I’m not a blogger, but I am a businessman and I know efficiency when I see it. The blogger can get all the info he/she needs via online records, phone calls, emails, etc. It’s no longer necessary to get in your car (wasting time), drive somewhere (wasting gas), talk to somebody (wasting their time), and drive back to the office (which rrequires RENT).
Catch my drift? Efficiency, Ms. Goldman! Hopefully you run your money firm using the same principles.
TG.
Feb 20, 2009 - 4:18 am 4. Mary Grabar:Good article, but I beg to differ about the “inconsequential relationship between Bill Ayers and Barack Obama.” And very little ink was spilled by the MSM on this connection that speaks volumes about Obama’s outlook. Had the public been more aware of it, we might not be suffering the consequences now under this “stimulus.”
Feb 20, 2009 - 4:48 am 5. typos_R_us:Saw this coming.
Feb 20, 2009 - 6:04 am 6. Marc Malone:BTW, didn’t Ayers and the Usurper share an office for a while?
Or was that some other criminal?
I don’t have a problem with bailing out the newspapers. They are clearly just the Dems’ propoganda wing. This would just make it official. Pravda.
Feb 20, 2009 - 7:34 am 7. David Thomson:“Good article, but I beg to differ about the “inconsequential relationship between Bill Ayers and Barack Obama.”
Barack Obama seems to be a milder and non-violent version of Bill Ayers. These two have much in common. Obama is a self hating American who advocates a socialist agenda. He also favorably reviewed Ayer’s book on education. At the minimum, Obama’s relationship with the unrepentant terrorists raises serious question—that the MSM was unwilling to investigate during the presidential campaign.
Feb 20, 2009 - 7:38 am 8. bruce:the lame stream media has become little more than the propaganda arm of the socialist democrats.why should they get my tax dollar so that they can spread disinfomation?let the bums go under as nobody but commies read their crap.
Feb 20, 2009 - 8:18 am 9. Susan Katz Keating:Ooo! Ooo! Can I have a blog bailout? Hold on a sec, while I draw up my projected financial needs…. wheeee!!!
Feb 20, 2009 - 8:23 am 10. David Thomson:By the way, some people may have been surprised by my reference to Barack Obama’s favorable book review of Bill Ayer’s thoughts on education. Here is a link to the actual piece:
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=64
After reading the book review, I think you will also conclude that the relationship between Obama and Ayers is not “inconsequential.”
Feb 20, 2009 - 8:36 am 11. David W. Lincoln:That’s what happens. They fell into the trap that Bernie Goldberg warned, and warns, about.
Feb 20, 2009 - 9:37 am 12. Peter:Am I the only person who recalls the dismissal out of hand by the newspaper industry of data and journal articles that challenged global warming or death from second-hand smoking because they were researched by someone who had some connection via funding to the tobacco/oil industry?
It would me to me that the information published by a newspaper receiving government funding for its operation could be dismissed as bogus using journalists’ own set of rules. So why would we seek to fund “useless” information?
Feb 20, 2009 - 10:55 am 13. Joe:“The bulk of newspaper reporting comes free press releases, telephone calls, and public records, anyway. I can do most of the work on a morning without leaving my chair.”
Feb 20, 2009 - 11:45 am 14. Brian Richard Allen:No offense, Typewriter King, but if you shared that little tidbit with any decent newspaper editor or reporter, they’d laugh in your face. Press releases and public records are a small part of the process. . .good journalism is derived from building long-standing relationships with sources. At other times, you have to spend hours on end at public meetings to understand the issues in a community. And you have to possess the ability to write effectively to reach a broad audience. That’s for starters. No good reporter ever succeeded by sitting on their ass and waiting for the news to come to them.
And I’m not arguing for a government bailout here. Newspapers need to figure out what it takes to win readers back and develop viable business models on their own (to clarify, the papers in CT weren’t seeking $$$, the state only served as a conduit to connect them with a buyer, because their former owners didn’t know a damn thing about running newspapers and essentially gave up on them).
I agree, the standards at a lot of papers have weakened in recent years, but be careful what you wish for. If they all suddenly disappeared, it would kill an important piece of our democracy.
The “inconsequential relationship between Bill Ayers and Barack (Zero),” includes this:
Indisputably the author of both of the novels that are the only visible source of that part of the Zeros’ ill-gotten wealth that might, at a stretch, be considered somewhat “legitimate, Ayres IS Zero and Zero is but the somewhat socially acceptable face of the self-and-own-culture-loathing psychopathological-ideologue, Ayres.
And of Marx and Lenin and Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Min and Pol Pot.
And, more recently, this frightening empty galabia is but the glove puppet of such of America’s other deadly enemies as Frank Marshall Davis, Saul David Alinsky, Calypso Louis, (”Farrakhan”) the “reverend” Wright and Bernadine Dohrn.
And of the hooded-lidded hatred-driven racist who provides him with what passes for his spine: one Michelle LaVaughn Robinson.
Brian Richard Allen
Feb 20, 2009 - 7:55 pm 15. Mudpie:Los Angeles CalifMICHELLEcated 90028 and the Far Abroad
Joe: You are talking about good reporters. I remember them. They were in my youth, back in the 40’s. Today ALL
Feb 20, 2009 - 9:59 pm 16. joe:reporters get a press release from the school board or
city counsel and report from that. That is why I quit the
newspaper 25 years ago and TV news 30 years ago.
Well nothing really new here about the decline of newspapers. It seems to avoid the underlying causes of this decline, which to most businessmen would be obvious, but because newspapers are run by journalists it is not. I mean by God they are journalists. The product newspapers are selling is flawed and has no value.
The root problem is newspapers have stopped providing value to most Americans. People spend money on things which they need, provide them entertain or feel will help them obtain their goals.
Once people realized there were other sources to obtain the information they felt they needed newspapers started a steady decline. For example, I do not need a newspaper to determine what might be on television tonight. My cable or satellite provider does a much better job of providing that information. If I want a sports story or game scores then there are multiple sources on line, which can provide me with that information in greater detail than my newspaper. The same holds true for stock market analysis or stock prices. If I want to make a major purchase, I do not need the print ads to tell me where to find the best price. I can do this much more effectively using the internet.
Now we get to the latest canard as to why journalists believe newspapers are important. This canard is to they are essential to preserving our democracy. This might be true, yet it would appear most Americans do not accept this premise.
The bond of trust that once existed between newspapers and their readers has been shattered. It was shattered when newspapers became nothing more than propaganda organs for the left in America. Readers discovered what their local newspapers were printing and selling really was as much their point of view as it was facts. They decided what news was, how that news was to be packaged, and then what we their customers should conclude. In a sense, journalist believed themselves to be superior to their customers. Compounding this was the positions of their opinion pages began to shape the news that was reported in other parts of their product.
It will take a very long time for this trust to be reestablished if ever. Just ask Detroit about the car buyer perceptions of quality. They have been fighting that for 20 years and have made little headway. Until such time there is a culture shift by journalists and this is reflected in the product they sell, newspapers will continue this decline.
Feb 22, 2009 - 10:26 am 17. EdGi:Your dismissing of the Ayers involvement is like dismissing Nixon’s connection to the Plumbers. The MSM did not hype that story, they deliberatly ignored and suppressed it. What the hell papers were you reading that lead you to think they hyped it?
Feb 22, 2009 - 2:03 pm 18. Justin:Since congress seems to think it gets to run the banks, GM, and Chrysler that have been bailed out (and persons in congress think that they have some frame of reference for making business decisions), will congress get to dictate the content of newspapers that are bailed out?
And can you imagine the carrying coals to Newcastle problem of hard left Democrats telling mainstream newspapers what to say?
Feb 22, 2009 - 2:31 pm 19. Camo:Chief executive officer, Brian P. Tierney said in a statement, “This restructuring is focused solely on our debt, not our operations…Our operations are sound and profitable.”
If you keep doing business (operations) as usual, then the results will be the same – more high debt, and another bailout in a few years.
Feb 22, 2009 - 11:20 pm 20. kiwikit:I honestly believe it’s the loss of trustworthiness that has destroyed the newspapers and that coincides with a readers ability himself to find the ‘other side’ of news reports. Eventually, one sees that the paper provides propaganda, and personal views: never truth. Why spend good money for that?
Feb 23, 2009 - 3:23 am 21. LakeLevel:If the newspapers start taking public money, they should be subject to any new incarnation of the Fairness Doctrine.
Feb 23, 2009 - 1:26 pm 22. deguello:I have a suggestion for Pinch Sulzberger and all the other editors,of failing liberal rags:Switch to a fully functional toilet paper format, printed with the paper’s masthead, and only run ads (use only hypo allergenic ink of course, and biodegradable paper);and sell it on toilet paper shelves in supermarkets! No need to pay huge salaries to lib”journalists”,you provide a valuable sanitation services ,and folks get to read the only part of the paper they are interested in.Presto! Solvency!
Feb 26, 2009 - 10:45 am 23. Bernie Reeves:Jeopardy has been a habit with Americans since the 1960s when Art Fleming was the host and college kids cut class to catch the challenging Q&A program that remained popular through quiz show scandals and the rise of banality permeating the genre. Somehow Jeopardy’s birth date was changed to the 1980s under the aegis of talk show host, crooner and later Las Vegas impresario Merv Griffin, who claims paternal rights – although the program was over 20 years old before he took possession.
Under Fleming’s successor, Alex Trebek, audiences have accepted the dandy Canadian’s frail attempts at humor and his nightly reference to his native land in at least one clue, thinking Canada needs help with its self-esteem as the “frozen attic of America.” And we forgive Alex for his inane banter and sometimes obsequious flirtations with attractive female contestants – and his inability to decide on a moustache. But there is another development on Jeopardy that has advanced to the point comment is required.
Since Merv took over, ad placements in the clues have become a commonplace, such as entire categories extolling the virtues of Las Vegas, or Campbell’s soup – and the most consistent and flagrant of them all, the New York Times. As the gray lady’s finances have plummeted, placing ads hidden as questions on Jeopardy has become a weekly occurrence. But now the newspaper’s paid product placement has taken on a politically charged tone.
In one program recently, the clues revealed uniformly unattractive talking heads from the Times offering “answers” for contestants, but with a new twist. In each case the Times men and women boasted that they had influenced public policy, such as, “Due to my column, the administration changed its policy”; or “My in-depth coverage changed the course of the war in Iraq, which I was against.”
They just can’t help themselves, can they? The vanity of newspaper folk knows no bounds. Inserting their own views – or the opinions of the editorial board – is one of the reasons the public has demonstrated it no longer trusts daily newspapers. And here is the epitome of journalistic bias — buying space on Jeopardy and reminding 20 million Americans why they hate them. You’d think they would take the opportunity to persuade the public they are improving their wrecked credibility. Alas, their demise is in their DNA.
This is sad since the reading public is ready to hear their case as newspapers continue their steep decline. And their story is a good one, if they would only tell it.
Their problem started in the 1950s when the Associated Press, the membership organization comprised of dailies, weeklies, business journals and magazines, allowed broadcasters to join. According to a former president of AP, they liked the money paid in dues by radio and TV stations – although broadcast outlets rarely contributed to the pool of stories members could use. AP members can carry stories from any other member. If there is a breaking story in Chicago, any other member paper has full use of on-the-spot reportage. Yet you can count on your right hand how many times a newspaper carried a story from a TV or radio station.
Then comes the Internet. Mostly engineered by broadcast outlets and satellite and cable sources, as members of AP the new instant information systems simply took the available content and ran the news as if it was their own. Although newspapers were aware of the Internet, and spent billions going online, their stodgy, button-down old habits didn’t translate well to the new paradigm that relies on graphic exposition, eye-catching elements and four-color presentations. The newspapers were beaten by showmanship, not content. And sizzle counts online.
It is galling to newspapers that they actually employ live human reporters who cover the main beats, a feat a TV station can’t accomplish with its emphasis on show business, talking heads and cameras rather than actual reporting. If the newspapers were to drop out of AP and copyright their content, Internet outlets would lose 90% of their news. That’s why Rupert Murdoch purchased the The Wall Street Journal – to capture real reporters to feed his Fox Business News cable channel. The sly Aussie knew his on-air “personalities” couldn’t cover a shopping center ribbon cutting.
Yet even so, why would an Internet user prefer the web site produced by the local TV station over the effort by the source of news, the newspaper? Could it be a deep resentment of daily paper bias and arrogance over the past 50 years? I think so, and the New York Times makes the point on Jeopardy.
May 20, 2009 - 2:11 pm