Subsidized journalism

The latest edition of the Columbia Journalism Review contains a feature by Bree Nordenson calling for news outlets to be government-subsidized. See, newsgathering is expensive, and the Internet is reducing newspapers’ revenues – because it increases competition between papers, making it hard to charge subscription fees; and because Web sites like Craigslist siphon off advertising. Thus, rather than adapt our business models to this growing trend, why not get the government to pony up some cash? It works for farmers, defense industries and Amtrak, right? And PBS and NPR are never pressured by the government, are they?\nSome journalists might be nervous about this idea – that whole “the free press is a check on government power, so we shouldn’t give it financial control over us, blah, blah, blah” thing. But me, I’m always up to make a quick buck. And so, this column is brought to you by the generosity of Uncle Sam. I’m sure you will find it meets the same high standards seen here every week.\n(Hello, this is Dweezil Daneeka, assistant deputy chief, Media Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission. In the interest of serving the American taxpayer, this column has been placed under FCC regulatory authority to ensure that it conforms to federal statutes regarding the content of publicly-supported speech. This, however, should in no way be confused with censorship. Instead, it is merely the official examination of this column and the suppression of parts deemed unacceptable. Thank you for understanding.)\nNow, last Thursday, the Democrat-controlled Senate attached a new piece of hate crime legislation to a bill funding the troops in Iraq. If signed, the new law would expand the definition of a hate crime to include attacks on gays and lesbians. But what this move really shows is that the Democrats are more concerned about pre-2008 posturing than governing.\n(FCC statutes regarding obscenity, indecency and profanity have required some modifications to the following paragraph.)\nNow, don’t get me wrong. I don’t care if you prefer (wee-wees) or (hoo-has) – as long as it involves consenting adults, your (lovin’) is your business. But hate crime legislation violates the principle of equal protection under the law. All violent crimes should be prosecuted harshly, not parceled out by George (hoo-ha) or (wee-wee) Cheney. This is merely a ploy to help the Senate’s Democratic presidential hopefuls – and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama can kiss my (behind).\n(The equal time provision requires that we inform you that Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Fred Thompson, John Edwards and Ron Paul can also pucker up.)\nIf the Democrats are serious about national security, they need to either support the war effort or withdraw the military from Iraq. Of course, the best solution is obvious ... (Passage redacted for reasons of national security).\nIn short, it’s just like the old joke about the nun and the liontamer. The nun asks the liontamer why he’s carrying a whip, and he says “I have a big hairy beast that needs taming.” In response, the nun says “Oh, I know just what you mean ... ”\n(Punchline redacted for reasons of not being funny.)