I can't help but wonder if such a theory would even be able to sustain newspapers, especially the many that exist around the country. With the example numbers given from the NYT, is a $5 billion endowment really that realistic? The popularity of papers is also decreasing, not just their revenue, therefore, why would people want to donate such large sums of money to keep the paper's running? (besides that it would be tax deductible since it would be considered a non-profit organization). It would still force newspapers to compete against each other, vying for donations from the readers. Although, it may lead to more news practices that the consumers are getting from the independent media, while not reading the mainstream anymore because of it. It would lead the papers away from a corporate background, while also eliminating biases, as regulations with the 501(c)3 groups.
I also found the quote calling the increasingly popular Internet news a "cesspool" of false information and "If Jefferson was right that a well-informed citizenry is the foundation of our democracy, then newspapers must be saved." There are many rumors that newspapers get some of their information from bloggers, as well as vice versa, however, it isn't just a one way street. I don't think it is possible for newspapers to control their bias if endowed by the public as is necessary, I think they would still report what they want to report, which isn't true of the independent media.
Further, I don't think this idea would last, even if it did, I don't think the NYT would be able to collect $5 billion a year for anymore than a year at most. If people have already wanted to stop reading many newspapers, why would they now want to donate them to keep them afloat?
No comments:
Post a Comment