« Muslims Condemn Mumbai Atrocities — Yeah, Right | Main | MSNBC's Alex Witt Amazed There Are Still Terrorists Even After Obama Won »

Over my dead body.

The buggy-whip lobby is SO jealous.

And despite the hubris of the journalistic community, people seem to be capable of "breathing" pretty well without the help of the newspapers. That's why they're in trouble.

I swear, Moonbattery is having an "Ugly People's Convention". Who are all these people and what rocks did they crawl out from

Why not just outright nationalize it?

Same reason you don't throw the frog straight into the boiling water, you put it in cool water and turn the heat up a degree at a time. Otherwise he'll freak out and escape, splashing you with boiling water into the bargain. I can imagine this would do wonders for the objectivity of the papers; the editors avoid offending the paying advertizers as it is. Big Brother may even think it's time to have a seat on the editorial board himself.

Hey, why didn't they bail out the Mustang Ranch?

Posted by: conservativeteen at December 1, 2008 11:44 AM

If it's good enough for health-care it must be good enough for newspapers.

Bailouts for newspapers sounds like something out of a black-humor comedy: the newspapers call for government bailouts in the name of preserving the voice of Democracy, the government de-facto takes over control of the newspapers, the newspapers become the puppets of the government purse strings and the owners that called for government bailouts find themselves thrown out on their ears.

It's almost Shakespearian, in a tragic sort of way.

We have separation of chucrch and state, shouldn't it be the same for newspapers?

If it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for the ny times.

I must reject any credit for this tip VH. It's all VtheK.

Evilwrench you hit the nail on the head, exactly.

Could you imagine if the newspapers came out at the beginning of this whole bailout fiasco with their hands out? The uproar would have surely put that issue to rest.

But instead, we start off with these banks that are "too big to fail." Then we move on to a few credit card companies. Hell, Amex even stepped up to the trough. Then we've got the auto companies. And it goes on and on until, eventually, we just say, "what the hell."

Well, I'm still saying, "what the hell." The concept of a company being "too big to fail" is so completely foreign to me that I feel it's laughable. Companies grow in size by being successful. If a company is then unsuccessful, it shrink, or goes under. That's life. That's capitalism.

If the government truly wants to "bailout" our entire economy, do it in one fell swoop. Take this estimated 6.3 trillion dollars that the bailout is going to cost and divide it up among every person who filed a tax return last year. I can think of a few big ticket items and a couple bills I'd take care of with money like that. I'm sure all of us could. I'd prefer, however, that the government get its grubby hands off of private enterprises and get to the business of being full of incompetent bureaucrats. Let the economy correct itself, suck it up, and grow a pair.

This concept of giving more money taken from my paycheck to companies that have proven themselves incompetent infuriates me.

Not one more penny. NOT ONE. Screw this bailout crap. The markets are still in chaos (down over 400 last I looked), and now the "welfare" crowd is coming with it's collective (and I MEAN "collective") hand out.

No way, Jose. Bail out something as "vital" as a privately owned newspaper? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Do like the rest of us do...PRODUCE GOODS AND SERVICES THAT MEET A NEED AND YOU'LL PROSPER. IF NOT, THEN FAIL. SIMPLE AS THAT.

The producers must turn off the motor of the world. Let the looters crash and burn.

Who is John Galt?

matt, you're saying it. I'm saying it. Conservatives, liberals, wingnuts, moonbats, blacks, whites, etc. etc. for the most part are against these bailouts. Yet our "representatives" continue to ignore their constituents. We are being told, in essence, that we don't know what's good for us.

B.S.

MSM: Obama, we scratched your back for two years now it’s time to take your back scratcher out and reciprocate. Ya know, quid pro quo, as the saying goes.

CT Legislators Want State To Subsidize Newspapers

By Mark Finkelstein

Governor: John? It's the Governor here. Say, you guys there at the Bristol Press are doing a great job. Top notch. But there is that one reporter of yours making a big stink over our proposal to increase the state income tax. He really doesn't get what we're trying to do to help our state move forward. And you know, that bill to renew your paper's subsidy is coming up next week. I'd hate to see it get bogged down in the fuss over this. Know what I mean?

Editor: Um, yes, I know, sir.

The conversation is imaginary but the possibility is real. At least, it is if the proposal of seven Connecticut state legislators were ever to be adopted. As reported at the BristolToday blog, the seven have written a letter to the state's Commissioner of Economic and Community Development asking for state "help" for two struggling local newspapers in their districts. [H/t FReeper abb.]

When I lived in Mexico, the government used to sell newsprint to newspapers at deeply discounted prices. Needless to say, that discount was subject to being yanked if the papers printed something the government found disagreeable.

Ironically, the legislators claim they are seeking the state "help" because "we want the public to have access to independent news about what is going on in government and in our communities." If ever there were a way to undermine "independent news," this is it.

Note: I checked. What do you know? All the legislators who sent the letter are Democrats.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/11/25/ct-legislators-want-state-subsidize-newspapers

I must reject any credit for this tip VH. It's all VtheK.

In the Age of Chairman Zero, we have to share the wealth, cowlove.

Can someone explain to me why my tax dollars should go to some dink newspaper that I, nor 99% of the rest of Americans will never read?

Screw them! Let 'em crash and burn!

As much as I love this country, I think we deserve all of this. The majority of voters voted for these moonbat idiots even after being warned repeatedly of their intentions to tax the heck out of them. The people deserve the government that they get and this generation of cry babies and effeminate tofu-eating men is about to get what they deserve in the form of extreme taxes, reduced freedom, and government control.

Ammendment 1 of the constitution specifically prohibits congress making any law respecting the establishment, or restricting the free exercize of the press, it is also prohibited from abridging (editing) that said free press.

While this does not exactly say they cannot be financed by the govt. it does require they have no say in what is printed.

The bottom line is not if the govt. will someday own, or control the press (it already does), it is that as in any free enterprise, the demand will control the supply. When the demand for newspapers is below the level of supply, actions must be taken to even the cost of said product. That being said, the papers should NOT be 'saved' at the expense of the tax paying public who is not interested in buying the printed word.

Our best action is to continue to not buy the newspapers that we feel are not printing the truth, and let them eat cake.

"Over my dead body.

Posted by: JR at December 1, 2008 10:52 AM"

ditto

Matt said: "Not one more penny. NOT ONE. Screw this bailout crap. The markets are still in chaos (down over 400 last I looked), and now the "welfare" crowd is coming with it's collective (and I MEAN "collective") hand out.

No way, Jose. Bail out something as "vital" as a privately owned newspaper? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Do like the rest of us do...PRODUCE GOODS AND SERVICES THAT MEET A NEED AND YOU'LL PROSPER. IF NOT, THEN FAIL. SIMPLE AS THAT.

The producers must turn off the motor of the world. Let the looters crash and burn.

Who is John Galt?"

I'm with Matt.

Heaven forbid the newspapers in question would ever consider adding more conservative editorial content in order to attract more readership from approximately 50% of America, or actually striving to out-do blogs in terms of commentary, breaking news or entertainment value. Or, um, add something slightly more entertaining than dry news with a leftist bent; or even consider making decent writing ability or thoughtful comment a higher requisite than simply functioning as arbiters for the leftist enterprise.

Hell people diss tabloids all the time but they're not going out of business - perhaps there's something to the business model which provides stuff people want to read, who knew.

I'm against bailouts in general, but this one is particularly sinister because it's the media.

Has it gotten to the point now where it isn't obvious to people that it's an extremely bad idea to have the government in the news media business?

The only reason the demacreeps want to bail out these roten liberal left-wing news papers is that their the biggist supporters of the demacreep party