Should government be involved in saving newspapers?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The government might step in and help rescue the struggling newspaper industry. Democratic Senator Benjamin Cardin has introduced a bill that would allow newspapers to operate like nonprofit organizations - kind of like public broadcasting stations.
The "Newspaper Revitalization Act" would let newspapers choose a tax-exempt status; they wouldn't be able to make political endorsements anymore, but could report on all issues - including political campaigns.
Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax-exempt; and contributions made to help support coverage would be tax deductible.
The Maryland senator says his bill is aimed at saving local newspapers, not large conglomerates. He calls the demise of the newspaper industry "a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy." And he's right.
The head of the newspaper industry's trade group calls the bill a positive step; although he agrees the approach may not work for all newspapers. Newspaper subscriptions and advertising revenue have dropped significantly in the last few years with more people getting their news from the internet or cable TV. Several newspapers have either stopped daily publications or announced they may have to stop publishing; while others have filed for bankruptcy protection, had layoffs, or announced employee furloughs.
Here’s my question to you: Should the government be involved in saving the newspaper industry?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Why are so many newspapers going under?
(PHOTO CREDIT: JUSTIN SULLIVAN/GETTY IMAGES)
The newspaper industry could be at a breaking point. Tribune Company filed for Chapter 11 this week and the Wall Street Journal reports that the New York Times Company, which publishes 19 newspapers, is negotiating with lenders to borrow less next year due to falling ad revenues.
Newspaper publishers say there's been a 15 percent drop in advertising sales across the industry this year and the outlook is bleak for 2009.
Papers were already struggling to compete with cable TV and the internet and now the economic downturn is spelling more trouble.
Last year Tribune, which owns television stations and newspapers, went private and was bought out for $8.2 billion but it wasn't enough to save them.
The New York Times has been cutting costs by consolidating and closing print plants.
McClatchy Company, which owns 30 newspapers, cut 2,550 jobs this year and took other steps to cut $200 million. But it still may not be enough.
Here's my question to you: What does it mean that so many newspapers are going under?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
News media unfair to Clinton?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It seems like Hillary Clinton is not only running against Barack Obama these days, she's also running against the news media.
Early on in last night's debate, Clinton referenced a "Saturday Night Live" skit that showed reporters fawning over Obama and showering him with softball questions. She said, "Maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow." Clinton also whined about getting asked the first question more often in the last several debates.
The Clinton campaign has been complaining recently – more so since she has fallen behind – that the news media is tougher on her than Obama. It's a tactic as old as politics: things aren't going well, blame the media.
In today's column in The New York Times, Maureen Dowd questions Clinton's line of attack against the media.
She writes: "Beating on the press is the lamest thing you can do. It is only because of the utter open-mindedness of the press that Hillary can lose 11 contests in a row and still be treated as a contender."
She has a point. If Barack Obama had lost the last 11 races in a row since Super Tuesday, we wouldn't even remember his name.
Here’s my question to you: Have the news media been unfair to Hillary Clinton?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Candidates blaming the media?
You know things are really getting ugly out there on the campaign trail when the candidates start going after the media. And that's exactly what's happening now.
First, there was that heated exchange between Bill Clinton and a local TV reporter in California. The former president got visibly annoyed when the reporter asked him about the decision to allow caucuses in the Las Vegas casinos where a lot of Barack Obama's supporters work.
Enter Republican candidate Mitt Romney. When he was asked about the role of lobbyists in his campaign by an AP reporter yesterday, he became defensive. Said he doesn't have no stinkin' lobbyists running his campaign. What he does have is a high-level adviser who is also the chairman of a large communications firm. Oh.
And John Edwards is whining about the media, too. His campaign is launching a full-on assault on the media for what they claim is inadequate and unfair press coverage. His communications director says: "For the better part of a year the media has focused on two celebrity candidates." He wasn't finished whining. He said the media continue to focus on Obama and Clinton, despite the fact that Edwards beat Clinton in Iowa and that polls show competitive races in states like Nevada and South Carolina.
Complaining about the media comes as naturally to a politician as having his hand out.
Here’s my question to you: Is it the news media's job to keep all the candidates happy?
To see the Cafferty File video click here
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments