Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5B14H320091202?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top Democratic lawmaker predicted on Wednesday that the government will be involved in shaping the future for struggling U.S. media organizations.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, saying quality journalism was essential to U.S. democracy, said eventually government would have to help resolve the problems caused by a failing business model.

Waxman, other U.S. lawmakers and regulators are looking into various options to help a newspaper industry hurt by the shift in advertising revenues to online platforms.

Tweaks to the tax code to allow newspapers to spread losses over a greater number of years, providing a nonprofit structure to allow for public and foundation funding, and changes to antitrust laws are being considered by lawmakers and policymakers.

"Eventually government is going to have to be responsible to help and resolve these issues," Waxman told a conference hosted by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission on the future of journalism.

Free Press, a public interest group, said the search for solutions to the crisis in journalism should be premised on the idea that news-gathering is a public service, not a commodity.

Waxman's "indication that government has a role to play is both bold and soberly sensible," said Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott on the sidelines of the FTC conference.

At the Federal Communications Commission, officials are embarking on a quadrennial review of the state of U.S. media. The study, which is mandated by Congress, seeks to determine whether current rules should be changed to allow for a more vibrant media industry serving a diverse audience.

As advertising sales shrink and more people get information and entertainment online, media companies want more freedom to merge and own multiple outlets in particular locations.

Sentiment also is growing that the Internet and other technological advances have rendered media regulation debates obsolete, industry observers say.

The FCC rules have come up for review before, but the stakes are higher now, with broadcasters and publishers like Tribune Co in bankruptcy.

U.S. media ownership rules generally prohibit a company from owning a television broadcaster and a newspaper in the same market but exemptions have been granted over the years.

Waxman was wary of such cross-media ownership structures.

"Even greater consolidation of the business has not helped," Waxman said.

(Reporting by John Poirier; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)

All I have to say is North Korea is best Korea!

(ok I just wanted to say that for no reason actually).

**youngblood**

The government pays quite well for propaganda pieces. How do you think I have so much time to brainwash... er... debate on here?

**tblock1984**

Hurm... the government more strictly regulating the media... What can possibly go wrong?

Oh, yeah... That's right...

**Kanluwen**

I didn't see anything in that article about the government controlling what pieces get written/aired...

It talked about moderating advertising revenue.

In summation:

Bwuh?

**tblock1984**

Kanluwen wrote:I didn't see anything in that article about the government controlling what pieces get written/aired...

It talked about moderating advertising revenue.

In summation:

Bwuh?

Selective reading, i guess... >_<

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, saying quality journalism was essential to U.S. democracy...

I said "government more strictly regulating the media" Isn't that what the OP was about?

**Frazzled**

Kanluwen wrote:I didn't see anything in that article about the government controlling what pieces get written/aired...

It talked about moderating advertising revenue.

In summation:

Bwuh?

Incorrect. That should be Bwuh wha?

Our press is best press? No
Our Waxman is best Waxman? No and sounds icky.
Our Korea is best Korea. YES!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I like this part:
changes to antitrust laws are being considered by lawmakers and policymakers.

**Kanluwen**

OH! This is one of those fill in the blank situations!

Roger

**Altered_Soul**

While we are at it, why don't we get back on telegrams? Those sure are suffering with the advent of innovation and new technology.

The 8-track industry thinks they are getting a raw deal too.

**Frazzled**

I hear buggy whip manufacturers have really been impacted.

**Kanluwen**

Pft.

I heard tell Gnarrgh is upset that people stopped investing in his riding mammoth herds.

Frazzled, why'd you stop?

**Frazzled**

Kanluwen wrote:Pft.

I heard tell Gnarrgh is upset that people stopped investing in his riding mammoth herds.

Frazzled, why'd you stop?

Mammoths are so yesterday. Irish Elk are the New Black.

**tblock1984**

Kanluwen wrote:OH! This is one of those fill in the blank situations!

Roger

Umm... No, more like ironic satire. 'Scuse me if I am being rude, but have you even read the book, not just seen the movie?

The article is about the government discussing how to better regulate the media in order to help it. Whether it is for financial reasons or to better fuel propaganda is beside the point. In the graphic novel, Susan began his rise to totalitarian fascist by doing little benign things for the good of the people... And what Frazz stated in the OP is similar to how he did it (Tax breaks, new better" legislation, etc...) for most of "The Body". In this case, it would be "The Mouth".

All I was saying is I read a story of fiction where this type of thing happened. All you need is a substantial and devastating event to occur to confuse the people and perform the switch... The Norsefire Regime was born under these same "Little changes for the good of the country." I am wary of lawmakers refining an already flawed system... The article said it (the government) was already thinking about legal loopholes, er, I mean changes to antitrust laws...

**Major Malfunction**

Newspapers are failing? Good. Let 'em die.

Teh Innerwebz R Best Innerwebz!

**Frazzled**

The Green Git wrote:Newspapers are failing? Good. Let 'em die.

Teh Innerwebz R Best Innerwebz!

Now you're thinking properly Citizen!

**mstersmith**

These are the same people who get butt hurt if you say anything making them look bad. Shocking.

**Cheese Elemental**

I for one welcome our new pseudo-Korean overlords.

**Frazzled**

Cheese Elemental wrote:I for one welcome our new pseudo-Korean overlords.

Excellent Citizen. I see the RightThoughts are now spreading. Keep up the good works Citizens, and remember Goodfacts, not Truefacts!

**tblock1984**

Kanluwen wrote:OH! This is one of those fill in the blank situations!

Frazzled wrote:Excellent Citizen. I see the RightThoughts are now spreading. Keep up the good works Citizens, and remember Goodfacts, not Truefacts!

It makes me a very happy panda to see that Frazz gets it, even if he doesn't know it!

**Kilkrazy**

Here in the UK we have quite a strongly government regulated media i.e the BBC.

The government hate them. They are constantly threatening them one way or another, fiddling with the licence fee, restructuring the management, etc. Nothing does any real good. Whatever happens, the BBC are resolutely slightly pro-government.

**Mannahnin**

Every time I visit Europe I'm surprised anew about how much more informative and less sensationalist TV news is.

The first time I was really blown away by watching the news and not becoming angry or tense.

Right now the only news my wife and I consistently watch on TV is on BBC America.

**tblock1984**

Mannahnin wrote:Every time I visit Europe I'm surprised anew about how much more informative and less sensationalist TV news is.

A coworker that just returned from France said the same fething thing! LOL

**yani**

Hmm yet more proof on the superiority of the good old BBC.

On another note Heil FRAZ

**yani**

Hmm yet more proof on the superiority of the good old BBC.

On another note Heil FRAZ

**Albatross**

the BBC are resolutely slightly pro-government.

That is so British - to be 'slightly' something in a hardcore, resolute, never-say-die, never surrender, 'fight them on the beaches'-type of way.

I love the BBC - it's just news. There seems to be more opinion pieces on American news programs I've seen (which isn't a massive amount, granted) - I could be mistaken, though. Thoughts?

**JEB_Stuart**

As a journalist I find this to be slightly scary...

**Dorns Fist**

I think McCain/Feingold is bad enough. It's a restriction on the First Amendment and gives the government control of political speech during election periods.

This is even worse. It is true much of our media is rotten and does no real journalism and is just a cheerleader for big government. That is why they are doing so bad! When what the main US media reports can be debunked within an hour or they fail to report actual news that can be found elsewhere they WILL fail and they SHOULD fail. Get rid of these dinosaurs and get back to some actual news. Let the free market work. Of course the government wants to prop up these media sources--It helps them keep in power. They already control much of the big media to a certain extant, and what they can't control they try to ignore/delegitamize. Government "help" will only give them more control.

Not surprised at all.

**Orkeosaurus**

How can something be free if the government isn't controlling it and making sure that it's free enough?

**warpcrafter**

So, now we can get Pravda at any ole' newsstand? That's just great. I'm off to practice my goose-stepping.

**sebster**

It's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that US media is terrible. Now, I don't agree with Waxman that solution is to be found in tax breaks and removing anti-trust legislation, but I certainly agree with him that its a pretty dire situation right now. But ultimately, the quality of profit driven media will be determined by the quality demanded by the general population. If people will only watch decent, content driven media and stay away from hyperbole and rhetoric you'll force a change.

But then I read a thread like this. Where people are reading suggestions of tax breaks and removing of market controls* and processing that as the government planning to take over news media.

You're getting the media you deserve.

*Which is something Rupert Murdoch argues for all the time. And a quick look into the lobby group behind Waxman's proposal, Free Speech, finds that it is in fact a Murdoch sponsored group. So what we're actually looking at a Democrat arguing on behalf of the owner of FOX news to removal market controls to allow him to buy up more media. Not that everyone out there would necessarily know or suspect Murdoch's connection to this, missing that is understandable. But reading 'give tax breaks and remove anti-trust regulations' as 'government takes control of media' is frankly ridiculous.

**Orkeosaurus**

sebster wrote:It's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that US media is terrible. Now, I don't agree with Waxman that solution is to be found in tax breaks and removing anti-trust legislation, but I certainly agree with him that its a pretty dire situation right now. But ultimately, the quality of profit driven media will be determined by the quality demanded by the general population. If people will only watch decent, content driven media and stay away from hyperbole and rhetoric you'll force a change.

But then I read a thread like this. Where people are reading suggestions of tax breaks and removing of market controls* and processing that as the government planning to take over news media.

You're getting the media you deserve.

*Which is something Rupert Murdoch argues for all the time. And a quick look into the lobby group behind Waxman's proposal, Free Speech, finds that it is in fact a Murdoch sponsored group. So what we're actually looking at a Democrat arguing on behalf of the owner of FOX news to removal market controls to allow him to buy up more media. Not that everyone out there would necessarily know or suspect Murdoch's connection to this, missing that is understandable. But reading 'give tax breaks and remove anti-trust regulations' as 'government takes control of media' is frankly ridiculous.

The article didn't actually say that Waxman was trying to give them tax breaks and remove anti-trust laws; just that "lawmakers and policymakers" were considering them. It did seem to imply that Waxman doesn't think the laws against owning multiple forms of media are causing the problem.

Plus, a government could still gain undue influence on an industry through money/tax breaks/special favors.