Government aid could save U.S. newspapers, spark debate

[Joanne98]

By Robert MacMillan - Analysis

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Connecticut lawmaker Frank Nicastro sees saving the local newspaper as his duty. But others think he and his colleagues are setting a worrisome precedent for government involvement in the U.S. press.

Nicastro represents Connecticut's 79th assembly district, which includes Bristol, a city of about 61,000 people outside Hartford, the state capital. Its paper, The Bristol Press, may fold within days, along with The Herald in nearby New Britain.

That is because publisher Journal Register, in danger of being crushed under hundreds of millions of dollars of debt, says it cannot afford to keep them open anymore.

Nicastro and fellow legislators want the papers to survive, and petitioned the state government to do something about it. "The media is a vitally important part of America," he said, particularly local papers that cover news ignored by big papers and television and radio stations.

To some experts, that sounds like a bailout, a word that resurfaced this year after the U.S. government agreed to give hundreds of billions of dollars to the automobile and financial sectors.

http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSTRE4BU53T20081231

Oh God! This is going to go over like a lead ballon! LOL. You know, if the media STOPPED spending money on their stupid lifestyle stories they MIGHT be able to sell newspapers for a change. But NO! We can't do that! That would be news and everybody knows the American people don't want that! GEEZ!

[williesgirl]

1. Government investment in the press MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. If some papers must fail,

so be it. Another will someday take it's place. The press is already in corporate's pockets, we don't need government involvement as well. rec'd

[Citizen Number 9]

6. Short and sweet

But totally correct.

The job of the newspapers is to report on what Government is doing and that will be nigh on impossible if the .gov is financing them.

[JDPriestly]

2. No. Let reporters start their own small newspapers.

Let's get some competition here.

[pretzel4gore]

3. the rightwing punks behind them....

it really is up to the people to support a honest, labour friendly (ie leftwing) news media, but generation of lies have pretty well ensured honesty will never affect news coverage anyway, so let's face it: the pig (mr rightwing moneyman liar) will get HIS version out there regardless, even if he has to pay outta his own pile-a-loot. Whether newspapers survive or not is almost incidental to the real problem (most people have no idea outright criminals now control the biz/gov worlds)
lol

[Joanne98]

4. True. It's hopeless. Let them die and we can start all over from scratch.

[pretzel4gore]

5. actually, i just subscribed to a paper, just so i can demand honesty!

boycotting the bastards sure don't work! letters etc are put in 'landfill' pile unless they think you buy the paper via subscription (which may be fair)i think the wheels come off society when Obama takes office- the economy really tank (???)

[Citizen Number 9]

7. Newspapers come in all shapes and flavors

and I don't know specifically which one you have graced with your subscription money, but in general, you don't know what you are talking about as regards them. They make revenue based on the advertising contained within and most have no functional pipeline between the Editorial department and the Subscription dept.

If you're having a hard time understanding that, let me be more plain; whether or not you hold a subscription has no bearing whatsoever on getting your letter published. Fact is, they like to publish well-written and well-thought out letters. Maybe that was your problem in the first place, but thanks for showing support for newspapers just the same. They are very, very important.

[anigbrowl]

8. Actually people do want to read stupid lifestyle stories

There's a reason magazines like 'People' sell so well. If people craved news as badly as you suggested then the NYT, WSJ etc. would be insanely profitable. The fact is that a lot of people, maybe even the majority, are primarily interested in being entertained rather than informed.

If it were up to me the right to vote would be based on the ability to pass some sort of IQ/general knowledge test so that people whose main preoccupations are celebrity gossip, missing blondes and pet grooming didn't get near the polling booth...but it's not up to me. Ho hum.