Thread: A serious conflict of interest.

Okay. So I was on my way home yesterday and heard on the news in my truck that our dear leader is considering another bailout. "WHAT?" I say to myself. And then I hear what our dear leader intends to bail out: News organizations. Even the most ardent Obama supporter should have some very large red flags coming up over this.
I searched the net and found this article among others:Government Has No Business Bailing Out Newspapers the People Don't Want - US News and World Report

The quote that reflects my thoughts closest is this:

Second, direct government funding of newspapers would create a massive daily conflict of interest. "Today's news about the federal government is brought to you by our sponsor . . . the federal government." To many Americans, government-funded newspapers sound like a domestic echo of old Soviet state newspapers like Pravda.

For all of you who have supported Obama with all his hope filled and flowery speeches I have one question: Do you now regret it?
I could care less about what you think of Bushes leadership qualities so dont even consider bringing that into this discussion. The answer to the question should follow like this: "Yes" and the reason why or "no" and the reason why, and remember, Bush is no longer our President. No need to go down that route.
I will start a simple yes or no poll if you wish not to reveal yourself and I request that only those who voted for Obama vote but anyone is welcome to reply.

There are 2 aspects to this.

First: state sponsored media. Don't diss it just because of the soviets. Many western European countries have them, and they are fairly accurate and honest. It's the coexistence of state sponsored media and private news media that keeps them all honest, since they are not above a hatchet job if it is warranted. I am not saying the US -should- follow our example, just that the principal existence of state sponsored media is not inherently bad. They keep each other honest.

Second: the bail out. Not a good idea. For cultural reasons, bailing out news media in the US would be a bad idea, since they would 'owe' the government. There would be conflict of interest. Government news media only works if they are are just salaried workers in a company paid by the government, independent of of whatever political parties happen to make up the government. The only way I could see this workign is if they would buy the news company lock stock and barrel, and make sure it is then funded without regard for political orientation of the government. Then it would not be a bailout but an acquisition. But in the cultural context of the US it would be a hard thing to sell even then. Not because they idea itself is bad, but because of the cultural differences.

Did you vote Bruno ?

I love the conservative mindset. I'm not 100 percent pleased with everything that has transpired. But he inherited a big ole pile of poopy. I am very sure, however that his performance has and will outshine anything McCain and (I almost can't say her name with out laughing out loud) Palin. So... so far, given the bag of dog shite set of fire and put on the door step by the previous junta in power (see I didn't mention his name like you asked) I'm ok with his performance and don't regret voting for him.

I like this sigline by the way Bruno!!

There is plenty of room for all God's creatures.
Right next to the mashed potatoes.

Originally Posted by joscobo

I love the conservative mindset. I'm not 100 percent pleased with everything that has transpired. But he inherited a big ole pile of poopy. I am very sure, however that his performance has and will outshine anything McCain and (I almost can't say her name with out laughing out loud) Palin. So... so far, given the bag of dog shite set of fire and put on the door step by the previous junta in power (see I didn't mention his name like you asked) I'm ok with his performance and don't regret voting for him.

Maybe you are right and maybe not but doesn't the idea of the government putting news organizations in a position of owing them something chill you to the bone?

Originally Posted by JMS

Did you vote Bruno ?

Yes. I took the liberty of adding the poll option 'I didn't vote but I want to see the results'.

Otherwise, people who didn't vote will skew the results of those who did, since we would have to choose 'not certain'

Thanks for the addition to the poll Bruno.

Originally Posted by JMS

Maybe you are right and maybe not but doesn't the idea of the government putting news organizations in a position of owing them something chill you to the bone?

I agree that this situation is not ideal for democracy in the sense that the government could then misuse its power over said news organisations. Look at Berlusconi in Italy.

On the other hand: in my country we have an official television channel that is often rather critical of our government. Inasfar as I know there's little or no interference from the govt in the issues brought up by this channel.

So I do understand why you worry about this. But, tell me, why are you not concerned then with the influence of someone like Rupert Murdoch ??

Originally Posted by decraew

I agree that this situation is not ideal for democracy in the sense that the government could then misuse its power over said news organisations. Look at Berlusconi in Italy.

On the other hand: in my country we have an official television channel that is often rather critical of our government. Inasfar as I know there's little or no interference from the govt in the issues brought up by this channel.

So I do understand why you worry about this. But, tell me, why are you not concerned then with the influence of someone like Rupert Murdoch ??

Rupert Murdoch does not wield the power of the US government.