See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Obama, when is it too much? « Riggword Weblog
2. Now they want to bailout the failing liberal newspapers…. « Sharp Right Turn
3. Government seeks to make newspapers non-profit, ban political endorsements | Liberty Confidential
4. Obama Throws In The Towel « Peace and Freedom Global Future
5. And so, it has come to pass… | The 2008 Elections
6. BizzyBlog » Hundreds of NPRs: Dem Senator Introduces ‘Newspaper Revitalization Act’
7. The Newest Government Plan - Allowing Newspapers To Be Tax Cheats « Beltway Snark
8. Now Government is in the Business of Bailing Out Failed Newspapers … The Cardin Newspaper Revitalization Act | Scared Monkeys
9. Student Loan Forgiveness as Stimulus? « Retake Education
10. Hot Air » Blog Archive » The Government Co-Option of Newspapers Bill hits Congress
11. Newspaper bailout?
12. UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » How Could the Newspaper Industry Get Any Worse? Put the Government in Charge of It
13. Next In Line In The Bailout Aisle: Newspapers!? « Jane Q. Republican
14. Newspaper Bailouts? | The Great Illuminator
15. Rhymes With Right
16. Michelle Malkin » Where in the world
17. I.O.U.S.A. - Understanding The National Debt | psxdns.com - codeword clearance required

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #658661
   On March 25th, 2009 at 10:28 am, chapoutier said:

   If the newspapers do go non-profit. Will they be held to the same standards as others? By that I mean, will they no longer be allowed to overtly endorse candidacies? Seems to me there is an edge to this proposal noone is considering.

   Yes they are. From above:

   Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

2. #658666
   On March 25th, 2009 at 10:30 am, swede said:

   If everyone who reads the NYTimes had to pay, the Times would be doing fine.

   Non sequitur. If they had to pay they wouldn’t read it. Nothing magic, simple supply and demand. NYT offers a product no one wants to pay for. Next.

3. #658667
   On March 25th, 2009 at 10:30 am, DBNinKY said:

   My general observation of human behavior indicates that this proposed change will present all sorts of opportunities.

   After what I read about Obama’s tax plans for charitable giving (as he is reported to have stated them last night), I doubt there’ll be many non/not-for-profits left to worry with in the near future.

4. #658670
   On March 25th, 2009 at 10:32 am, gunslingerpatriot said:

   Retfireman-
   This comic link is just for you, so enjoy your “It’s Bucky Time!”

   Now pardon me as I have to produce a research paper for my sociology class.

   GSP
   “This is Sparta!”

5. #658699
   On March 25th, 2009 at 10:43 am, misterbee241 said:

   Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

   So they’ll be less biased than they are now?
   So newspapers will become the official propaganda arm of the liberal democrats as opposed to being the unoffical propaganda wing they are now. So the government will be giving them permission on what to write and when. So much for 1st amendment freedom of the press.
   I canceled my local newspaper subscription back in November and I was never even asked why. They keep trying to get me back by leaving the rag in my paper box, but it just goes into the recycle bin unread.

6. #658706
   On March 25th, 2009 at 10:45 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

   chapoutier said:

   Let them go non-profit. Its not like they are making any money to be able to pay any taxes in the first place.

   Wouldn’t they essentially become a stealth 527 with a printing press reporting on political ~news~ like cpusa.

   No matter how you look at it you cannot deny that affording them ANY sort of government protections, ESPECIALLY those that require the government to ~determine~ what activities they may or may not engage in, is… TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE 1ST AMENDMENT.

   (Is somebody out there making a list of all the CRAP that has to be quickly repealed when conservatives take over Congress and the White House?)

7. #658707
   On March 25th, 2009 at 10:45 am, misterbee241 said:

   On March 24th, 2009 at 10:50 pm, theloneranger said:

   Dont worry, nothing can save newspapers. Whether they die today or tomorrow, they will die anyway. Thank God.

   But not before a lot of taxpayer money is thrown into that sink hole.

8. #658756
   On March 25th, 2009 at 11:05 am, misterbee241 said:

   On March 25th, 2009 at 3:08 am, atheling said:

   Is this constitutional?

   Gold Hat: Badges Constitution? We ain’t got no badges Constitution. We don’t need no badges Constitution. I don’t have to show you any stinking badges Constitution.
   With apologies to Alfonso Bedoya.

9. #658771
   On March 25th, 2009 at 11:12 am, Salt said:

   On March 25th, 2009 at 10:02 am, lgm said:

   Misleading (lying?). The reason the NYTimes is hurting financially …

   Hmmm… this reminds me of the time last week when lgm defined Ad Hominem and then proceeded to claim the individual to which he was responding was on LSD in a lame joke.

   I notice a similarity here.

   lgm, you really don’t need to preface your comments with what you’re about to do. We get it.

10. #658874
    On March 25th, 2009 at 12:03 pm, battleaxe said:

    Newspapers are already demanding welfare…from Google

    http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=135433

11. #659157
    On March 25th, 2009 at 2:22 pm, California Red said:

    This is all about making Soros’ contributions to the liberal rags tax deductible. “Ultrarich” patrons will throw their money at the newspapers instead of giving to the Government.

12. #659486
    On March 25th, 2009 at 6:18 pm, Stillwaiting said:

    Chap is right about ads in and subscriptions to non-profit publications not being tax deductible. There are many non-profit publications–such as National Geographic–and the cost of the magazine itself is not tax deductible and neither are the cost of ads. Usually you don’t “subscribe” to a non-profit publication…you pay to become a member of their organization and the publication is provided to you as a benefit of membership. At the most basic membership level, the “benefits” you receive equal the amount paid and you get no tax deduction. As you move into the higher membership categories the value of the benefits you receive goes up, but some portion of the membership price is deductible.

    If newspapers DO end up being treated as non-profits (horrible idea!!!), you will start getting some very, very funny junk mail–newspapers asking you to please subscribe at higher levels to help support their educational mission!!! LOL

13. #659489
    On March 25th, 2009 at 6:21 pm, Stillwaiting said:

    On March 25th, 2009 at 8:59 am, jangar said:

    Thanks jangar. It’s always nice to know someone read your post.

14. #659506
    On March 25th, 2009 at 6:53 pm, MuscleDaddy said:

    …as if they couldn’t already count-the-reasons to worship The One…

    – MuscleDaddy

15. #660341
    On March 26th, 2009 at 3:33 pm, 2cents said:

    State-run newspapers? How is this news? They are already the propaganda mouthpiece for the Obama administration, so this really won’t be much of a change. The only difference is that it’ll be compelled rather than voluntary; quite frankly, I think the voluntary is worse since they can still claim (though falsely) that they’re objective. At least once they’re officially state-run, they’ll lose that argument.

16. #660735
    On March 26th, 2009 at 10:13 pm, Stillwaiting said:

    Non-profit does not equal state-run.