Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Obama Looking Forward to Nationalizing Newspapers”

« Obama Proves Unable to Walk and Chew Missiles at the Same Time | Main | Obama Stands Behind "Prosecutors" - Well... »

September 20, 2009

Obama Looking Forward to Nationalizing Newspapers

Hatched by Dafydd

The nation's top "mainstream" (that is, reliably liberal) newspapers would all become nonprofits -- kind of like PBS:

The president said he is "happy to look at" bills before Congress that would give struggling news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as nonprofit businesses.

"I haven't seen detailed proposals yet, but I'll be happy to look at them," Obama told the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade in an interview.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) has introduced S. 673, the so-called "Newspaper Revitalization Act," that would give outlets tax deals if they were to restructure as 501(c)(3) corporations. That bill has so far attracted one cosponsor, Cardin's Maryland colleague Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D).

(Actually, they're already nonprofits... but more like Lehman Brothers than PBS. At least they can formalize their status; insolvency -- it's not a bug, it's a feature!)

How did the nation's elite liberal newspapers get into this mess? History is clear:

When they shifted from trying to report the news to trying to elect Democrats, they began shedding circulation.

When they lost circulation, they lost advertising -- including the critical classified adverts, which were the major source of most newspapers' revenue.

As their income tanked, they had to let reporters and editors go. Given their business model, of course they let go all the conservatives and moderates, anyone who might insist upon hard facts instead of "reporting" Democratic spin.

Thus, they became even more unilateral and strident, hence lost even more circulation. In various fields of science and maths, this is called a "feedback loop."

But now Sens. Ben Cardin (D-MD, 100%) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD, 95%) have proposed a solution to this catastrophic turn of events: These newspapers will henceforth become nonprofit organizations... and will be bailed out via "tax deals." This sounds oddly like a government subsidy.

Freed from the demand that they actually turn a profit, or even retain readership, they can now utterly wallow, like swamp hogs, in the foetid morass of New Left and liberal advocacy. They will no longer be in danger of sinking into the quicksand; the government will keep bailing them out, so long as they continue suckling at Barack H. Obama's breast.

What a cozy, madonna-and-holy-infant relationship.

At last, the only major national newspapers we shall have in future will be directly controlled by the federal government, and wholly dependent upon the president for their subsistence and continued existence -- like in Oogo Chavez's Venezuela. No more of this unpatriotic carping and racist demagoguing of the mitzvahs sloughed off by the Obamacle; the president and the Democrats in Congress will speak ex cathedra, and the church organs will pipe and print the holy writ. We'll finally have all of our drunks in a row.

What could go wrong?

Cross-posted to Hot Air's rogues' gallery...

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, September 20, 2009, at the time of 4:40 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/3900

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Obama Looking Forward to Nationalizing Newspapers:

» Obama Looking Forward to Nationalizing Newspapers from The Greenroom
The nation’s top “mainstream” (that is, reliably liberal) newspapers would all become nonprofits — kind of like PBS: The president said he is “happy to look at” bills before Congress that would give struggling news o... [Read More]

Tracked on September 20, 2009 4:51 PM

» Maloney Baloney from Big Lizards
Congressional hearings begin today on "the impact of the newspaper industry's financial problems." We previously discussed these hearings, and the legislation they're intended to spawn, in Obama Looking Forward to Nationalizing Newspapers. The hearings... [Read More]

Tracked on September 24, 2009 2:45 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: AD

DaH: When you say: "But now Sens. Ben Cardin (D-MD, 100%) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD, 95%)...", do the percentage numbers represent their relative IQ, and against what scale?

The above hissed in response by: AD at September 20, 2009 5:45 PM

The following hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste

IF they become 501(c)(3) then they'd be forbidden to engage in politics, wouldn't they?

And even if not, their independence would be fatally compromised by knowing that their tax breaks, and their very survival, was in the hands of who ever controlled Congress.

The above hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste at September 20, 2009 9:24 PM

The following hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste

(not, mind, that their indepence hasn't already been fatally compromised, of course)

The above hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste at September 20, 2009 9:25 PM

The following hissed in response by: BlueNight

Well, at least we'll have the Internet, free of political interference...

Wait, what's this about a bill that would allow the President, on his sole authority, to shut down the Internet in case of a national "cyber-emergency?"

The above hissed in response by: BlueNight at September 20, 2009 11:05 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

AD:

No, not IQ; my personal credo is, "Never attribute to stupidity what can adequately be explained by malice... most 'players' aren't that stupid."

To be Sirius for a moment, the percentile after the names of every current U.S. senator and representative is that person's "liberalness" (for a Democrat) or "conservativeness" (for a Republican). The numbers come from the ratings by Americans for Democratic Action and the American Conservative Union, respectively.

Thus, if you see something like Sen. John Doofus (R-UI, 92%), then that means Mr. Doofus is a Republican, he represents the great state of Upper Iguana (one of the extra seven states that Obama added during the campaign), and he is pretty conservative.

But if you read Rep. Amanda Hugginkiss (D-BA, 74%), then Ms. Hugginkiss is a Democrat, she represents some district in the fine state of Burmuna (another new addition), and she is relatively moderate, as far as Democrats go (they have many members in the 100-percenter club). By contrast, a mere 74% means she's practically a Dixiecrat!

In this case, since Cardin is 100% liberal and Mikulski is 95% liberal... you can take it as read that they're pretty liberal.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at September 21, 2009 12:04 AM

The following hissed in response by: AD

Dafydd:
I sort of guessed that, but couldn't resist the snark.
AFAIAC, those reported percentages do relate to IQ, and its' relationship to barn temperature for these two on a brisk Feb day.

The above hissed in response by: AD at September 21, 2009 11:21 AM