« Country Mouse, City Mouse | Main | Talk About Appropriately Named! »
March 19, 2009
Holder: Antitrust Aid OK For Newspapers
My, this is brilliant
WASHINGTON, March 18 (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday preserving a healthy newspaper industry was important and he was open to adjusting antitrust policy if it could help."I'd like to think 20, 30, 40 years from now people will still be reading the newspaper," Holder told reporters.
He was responding to a call by House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, urging the Justice Department to give newspapers more leeway to merge or combine operations.
The industry is reeling from declining circulation, economic recession and a shift in advertising and reader attention to online media. Venerable newspapers have closed or -- such as the Hearst Corp's Seattle Post-Intelligencer this week -- gone to Internet-only editions with reduced staff.
It seems to me the problem that has led to the newspaper's decline is indeed anti-trust: people don't trust the papers. So they don't buy their product.
And Holder's suggestion that the government let them get even bigger is foolish. Yes, let's allow and encourage money-losing operations to get even bigger and lose even more money, maybe to the point where they're "too big to fail."
That worked so well for Fannie Mae and AIG.
That's one way for the Left to get it's "Fairness Doctrine": nationalize the media.
Posted by Mr. Bingley at March 19, 2009 09:46 AM
Comments
I don't think newspaper decline has anything whatsoever to do with trust. It is all about cost and convenience. The average news consumer can get their news online free. It is also more current online and just as slanted but they don't even have to put on a bathrobe to go outside and get it.
Posted by: Rob at March 19, 2009 10:07 AM
That's a large part of it, no doubt Rob; it may well be the main cause. Why marry the girl if you can get all you want with no cost?
But we cancelled our NYT subscription because we were tired of the slant; I think a lot of folks have done the same.
Posted by: Mr. Bingley at March 19, 2009 10:16 AM
That news won't be there without someone to put it out though. Most of the online news comes from someone whose paycheck is either in part or whole paid by a newspaper or TV station.
There is slant, to be sure, in many publications, but the issue there is primarily one of the very things they're proposing to keep the industry afloat - combining operations. When larger media conglomerates started buying up smaller papers, the focus shifted from local to national. The ideologies shifted as well. Papers had a chance to live if they'd kept their local focus. I no longer hold this belief though.
The industry has suffered too long and people no longer care.
Posted by: Cullen at March 19, 2009 11:18 AM
Newspapers are anachronisms who's only real benefit is providing local news and as a container for advertising circulars and coupons.
They're also good for paper training pets and as kindling for fireplaces.
Posted by: Gunslinger at March 19, 2009 04:51 PM
About the NY Times; Whatever slant there is has pretty much always been there. Not much has really changed except that there are cheaper and more convenient ways to get the news. That said, the NY Times will be the last newspaper to go under. The locals will go first, then the syndicateds, and then the biggies like the NY Times and Washington Post.
Posted by: Rob at March 19, 2009 05:35 PM
Bing, why cancel because of the slant? One of the tenents of warfare is know your enemy. That's why I still get the Pravda/NY Times, have to know what they are doing and saying. Besides, I like the travel section on Sunday.
Posted by: major dad at March 19, 2009 07:39 PM
""I'd like to think 20, 30, 40 years from now people will still be reading the newspaper," Holder told reporters."
Right, because what the Attorney General "likes" should have anything to do with setting law enforcement policy.
Posted by: Dave J at March 19, 2009 10:42 PM
I love the newspaper.Lying in bed,drinking a cup of
coffee, and reading a good story is almost as good
as sex.But, the new generation are hyperactive
deprived sponges.They are unaware of that joy,
and that is why newspapers are going under.
Watch a video or TV show every "shot" lasts three
to four seconds only.
It is sad what they've done to my song,Ma.They wrapped it up in plastic bag and I think I'm going
insane,Ma.
Posted by: greg newson at March 20, 2009 12:24 AM
Another reason we cancelled paper newspapers is that they lay around the garage collecting dust for a month before we could put them out for recycling.
Re the slant of the NYT: it isn't just the political slant that bothered me. It was the constant urban hipster sneering at the suburbs (particularly those dreadful ones in New Jersey). I didn't understand why I should pay money to an entity that despises me, my values and tastes. I'm not a masochist.
Posted by: NJ Sue at March 21, 2009 08:07 AM