From Town Criers to Bloggers: How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?
I do not believe the government should be funding print or broadcast journalism other than PBS and NPR. What the government funds, it seeks to control and journalism needs to be objective -- not dependent on the government dole. A "free" press means free from government interference, and funding journalists will bring with it new rules and regulations they must abide by -- or lose funding. This is not the American way! Much of the mainstream media (TV, major newspapers) is in trouble because of the product they produce. People stop reading or listening when they realize they are getting a biased point of view. The media once was objective, and could be trusted to present the news fairly, but in recent years -- going back to the Clinton administration -- the news has picked sides with the majority presenting a liberal point of view. Survey after survey has shown that the preponderance of journalists vote Democratic. Is it any wonder they report the news according to their political beliefs? Journalism could become more interesting, informative, and valuable if each newscast, newspaper, or magazine presented contrasting liberal and conservative points-of-view. Put them side-by-side, and let the readers decide for themselves. Similarly, the media could add value to its product by routinely contrasting politicians' election promises with their final actions. Too often, previous promises of favored individuals are forgotten, letting them escape accountability. A vigilant media would not let this happen and seek instead to build a more informed electorate. Any funding for journalists will have to come from taxes, which adds to the cost of products or services I choose to purchase. Why should I have to support a journalist who's views I do not agree with? In summary, your workshops would be of greater effectiveness if you focused on how journalists can improve their product -- not on how to improve their income.