What if our local paper took government subsidies?
Columbia University president Lee Bollinger has an editorial in the Wall Street Journal in which he proclaims that government subsidies of the main stream media will not have an effect on their independence. To try to prove it he says this:
There are examples of other institutions in the U.S. where state support does not translate into official control. The most compelling are our public universities and our federal programs for dispensing billions of dollars annually for research. Those of us in public and private research universities care every bit as much about academic freedom as journalists care about a free press.
Yeah right. There's no better example of group-think than some of the political research that comes out of the universities. Take that recent survey asking academics who was the best U.S. president -- see Image over substance --FDR still ranked number 1 -- which parrots liberal orthodoxy ever so closely. For more credentialed eviscerations of Bollinger's editorial, see Cato and Mises.
But what about our local paper? The poor thing has gotten thin with news and thick with bulky advertising inserts, but that at least suggests they have some advertising revenue to bulk up their cash flow. But do we want them taking government money to help them stay afloat? Hell no. They are so shy about saying anything critical about their favorite politicians already that they would go mute if Congress held the purse strings.
So as harsh as it may sound, it's much better for the nation if they sink or swim in the free market. We don't need any more government bailouts, especially those that could serve as a gag on the First Amendment.
Comments