From Town Criers to Bloggers: How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age? #544505-04061

Submission Number:
544505-04061
Commenter:
Michael Pedigo
State:
Illinois
Initiative Name:
From Town Criers to Bloggers: How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?
The internet age has provided many new ways to obtain news, many of which are free or low cost. Another positive of the internet age is a reduction of control through the established media which currently has a strong liberal agenda and clearly does not remain unbiased in what and how it reports the "news." It could be said that incorrect information or news can be found on the internet or conservative medial outlets which is likely true; therefore you can’t believe everything you watch or listen to, but the same is most certainly true of mainstream liberal media outlets also. A tremendous benefit of the internet age is the average American can report what they see and experience which sometimes give’s a voice to the average American. The internet has given the average American a voice against companies who sometimes produce junk or provide poor service…it is far more difficult for any company to step out of line or take advantage of their customers. I think it would be very detrimental for the federal government to place restrictions which will stifle this creativity and advancement. There are many journalists in the industry today and many college programs available to aspiring journalists; therefore a new program in AmeriCorps is duplication of effort and unnecessary government expenditure. With our federal government already spending almost 1 trillion over budget per year, the federal government needs to be cutting, not adding additional debt. Also I do not support a Journalist bailout fund that pays the salaries of journalists as their organizations to which they are attached are responsible for this. I have been unemployed for almost a year and am no longer qualified for unemployment...I am not asking the government to tax everybody else so I can be paid; consequently I don't want to pay the salary of a journalist for which I have no care to listen to. Let media outlets charge what they need to in order to cover their salaries and expenses....if there is a demand for what they are publishing/broadcasting/blogging, then people will pay for it. FOX has only been around for about 25 years and is doing fine; therefore it clearly can be done even in today’s competitive economy. If the mainstream media was producing programs and news that the majority wanted to hear, then they would still be in demand. If the government requires an outlet for their propaganda, they can publish directly to the internet, but for the federal government to tax in order to prop up the mainstream media is stepping beyond the bounds of the federal government...and to specifically tax or target conservative mainstream media outlets would infringe on the freedom of speech in this country. The best thing the government can do is stay out of the media because it sort of works, and is somewhat balanced in its current form as there are media outlets for both liberal and conservative viewpoints. The day we restrict the ability for people to express and listen to varied viewpoints will be the day we stop being a nation with liberty and freedom. The internet is a great way for any person to make their viewpoint known whether liberal or conservative; therefore please do not regulate or tax the internet. For more traditional newspaper, TV, and radio they should also not be taxed in any way different then what is already done as what is being done is “fair” and leaves the public as the judge to what they want to listen to. As there is significant cost to publish a paper, TV, or radio program it would add undue and unnecessary burden to any media outlet to add more taxes or rules (like the “Fairness Doctrine”) that are not necessary other than to control the media for which those media outlets are protected by the Constitution of the United States of America.