Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With many U.S. newspapers struggling to survive, a Democratic senator on Tuesday introduced a bill to help them by allowing newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks.
“This may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat,” said Senator Benjamin Cardin.
A Cardin spokesman said the bill had yet to attract any co-sponsors, but had sparked plenty of interest within the media, which has seen plunging revenues and many journalist layoffs.

---

U.S. bill seeks to rescue faltering newspapers | Politics | Reuters

It has been my opinion that the MSM has been pseudo-advocates for the statists anyway so perhaps for transparency it would be best to shed any veneer and just codify their status as such . But let's assume there is some integrity left in the industry . Wouldn't such a relationship with the state destroy any chance of objectivity ?

Or let's assume that they have given up any pretense . Would their taking on a status of a non-profit prevent them from editorializing or stating public preferences to a candidate or generally acting in a partisan way ;or are those rules to be selectively enforced also ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

It has been my opinion that the MSM has been pseudo-advocates for the statists anyway

---

Hello tom:

I agree. They certainly lined up with the dufus when he was lying about Iraq. That's why we HAVE the 4th estate - to catch presidents in their lies... They didn't do their jobs...

So, pre-emptivly invading Iraq was a BIG mistake. However, the PRESS, in my view, bears a bigger burden for that mistake than the dufus.

Are they doing any better today?? Nope?

excon

Yeah the press certainly walked in lock-step with President Bush the last 8 years...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yeah the press certainly walked in lock-step with President Bush the last 8 years .......

---

Hello again, tom:

Your penchant for balderdash is noted... It used to be easier to argue with you guys... But, I can't refute made up crap.

excon

Gee EC, do you remember far enough back that the UN actually was worried about the WMD's in Iraq, or when Clintoon stuck his head in the sand after the first WTC attack, or how about the USS Cole, or Somalia, or Mogadishu. Who was it that listened to the same reports and voted to give the President of the United States the authority? Was it not the same people we now have in Congress? Sure was!

450donn

I decided to avoid rehashing the Iraq debate... been there.. done that . Neither Ex or I will convince each other of our position . I'm content to let history judge.

As for the press ;I don't believe for one second that they carried the water for President Bush in the run-up to the war despite their own mea-culpa Monday morning quarterbacking clap-trap.
The fact that everyone... EVERYONE thought that Saddam was hiding stockpiles of WMD before the war is already a matter of indisputable public record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 450donn

Gee EC, do you remember far enough back that the UN actually was worried about the WMD's in Iraq, or when Clintoon stuck his head in the sand after the first WTC attack, or how about the USS Cole, or Somalia, or Mogadishu. Who was it that listened to the exact same reports and voted to give the President of the United States the authority? Was it not the same people we now have in Congress? Sure was!

---

Hello again, 450:

This is about the press, but I'll engage you anyway.

Certainly I remember... But, it's the job of the press to ferret out the lies that were being told... They didn't DO their jobs. In fact, they helped spread the lies.

Does it matter that it was a GREAT BIG LIE that the whole world believed?? Not really.

excon

Then why do you insist on blaming one person?
Is it not the same media that hyped our current POTUS to stardom?

Hello again, 450:

I don't know. I thought I WAS blaming the PRESS here...

excon

Nonprofits? LOL, they're already nonprofit organizations aren't they? Just what we need is a whole country of print-versions of NPR and PBS. They're both extremely neutral aren't they? I wonder how many Soros would "buy" with his "philanthropic" efforts for himself?

Typical politician wanting to bail out [ yes, giving them tax breaks means other tax payors will pay what the newspapers don't ] a failing mode of business on the back of taxpayors.

Did he note that while print newspapers are generally doing poorly, online hits and readership are increasing?






G&P

Have you seen this? The Minneapolis Star Tribune is thinking they might just might like to be a charitable organization that operates for a profit.

Quote:

---

The Newspaper Guild has taken a leading role nationally in exploring ways for communities to invest in their local newspapers and preserve a vital community institution.

Because it’s so obvious the current business model for newspapers doesn’t work, we’ve been proactively investigating alternative ownership and business models that may ensure the Star Tribune will serve the Twin Cities community for many years to come.

These ideas include a low-profit limited liability corporation, the public television/radio model, micropayments, the Green Bay Packers model, non-profit/endowed organizations, employee ownership, and cooperatives.

The Guild is supporting federal legislation in Washington that would include newspapers among businesses that offer a “social benefit” to the community under current Internal Revenue Service rules. This would pave the way for a unique hybrid ownership model called an L3C - a low-profit limited liability corporation – that qualifies as a charity under IRS rules, but is operated as a for-profit business.

We’re engaged in creative thinking to Save the Strib. We deeply care about this longstanding institution because we live in this community. And we’d like to hear your ideas, too.

---

That's right, the Star Tribune wants to make a profit and then be exempted from taxes, presumably to continue trumpeting the soak-the-rich tax policies they favor.