Actually, the vast majority of newspapers have always gone easy on the Dems – that’s why the Dems want to save them from extinction. Of course this is a partisan move…anybody who doesn’t see that is a blind partisan themselves.

All I know is that a daily newspaper holds information that is far richer than any radio or television broadcast, and far exceeds the information density that is available online. We will become less informed without daily newspapers.

Something to think about.

I lived as a young adult when the Fairness doctrine was in place. That was a time when a local news broadcaster and/or radio/tv manager/owner spouted a 3 minute opinion during the 6 oclock news hour and felt obliged to provide airtime for alternative points of view. We also got to see full-color videos of combat footage from Vietnam including american body bags lined up neatly in a row. Which obviously is far, far different business proposition now as we become a Murdoch Nation of cable/radio news 24/7. It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. And still is both.

Because if the DEMOCRATIC PARTY passes this bill, saving all these newspapers from the brink of failure, how can those newspapers then be trusted to maintain their objectivity? Are they really going to do investigative reporting or adversarial journalism on the political party that just saved them from extinction? Most likely they will go easy on the Dems from then on, knowing that what favors the Dems provide, they can also take away.

For a newspaper, whose bread-and-butter is objective reporting, to be beholden to one political party and the favors it hands out to save it from extinction is a blatant conflict of interest.

First of all, radio stations have listeners, not viewers. A little copy editing goes a long way, folks.

Secondly, what does the First Amendment have to do with syndicated radio programming? Is the author arguing that the First Amendment guarantees us all a radio program? If so, then sign me up for my three-hour slot.

Reporters and journalists should be well aware that as soon as the Government steps in with any kind of favor, whether it’s tax deductions or direct subsidies, sooner or later that will come with strings on the money. They should not like being dependent on Government favors for ANY support.

The Government has used that trick to force private organizations that get special tax breaks to admit women (remember the fight over The Citadel?), and now to tell General Motors how to run its business and even who it can have as its CEO.

For Ben Cardin’s information, we don’t get a tax deduction for watching PBS programs. It’s directly funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which in turn is funded by Congress), and by voluntary contributions by viewers.

Now if newspapers can survive off direct contributions by wealthy readers, the way PBS does, more power to them.

Guys, I like the site but it needs more long form well reasoned and sourced articles and less of the drive by “we’re better than they are” snippets. I can go to redstate for that if I cared to.

I don’t understand this comparison. A congressman trying to find some path to keeping newspapers, which are dying out across the country, victims of changing technology, available in many outlets where they may be becoming exinct is somehow partisan?