From Town Criers to Bloggers: How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?
Members of the Federal Trade Commission, As a registered voter and American citizen, I am asking you not to consider giving or increasing any type of federal dollars to this endeavor. Government intrusion on America's media is the worse way to go (look at PBS as an example). It invites corruption, bias, censorship - the list goes on and on. My tax dollars should not be used by the government of the United States to prop up our media system. To consider taxing the citizens more than we already do for media coverage is wrong. Why would you consider it an "obligation" to help an establishment that took on enormous debt (to which they can't pay back!??)? How are THEY different from any other organization or person who is trying to survive in this recession, or in some cases, with the advancement of the internet? Is it that our government sees this as an opportunity for their ideological agenda? It certainly looks that way. Picking and choosing who to help and who to not help. Did I mention corruption earlier? Surely we have enough competent (I believe the government people like to refer to these people as "intellectuals") people who can figure out how we are to handle media dissemination in the age of the internet. I must say that it is very hard for me to believe that PBS is considered the front runner in media coverage (ref. “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism). What a joke, and this in itself explains what happens when the government funds media. Nearly all the people I know consider PBS to be bias-flavored news coverage. For a government that does not rely on "polls" it's interesting how you would promote and rely on the one used for PBS. This is the type of shanannigans we have come to expect from our government. For thirty something years I have had to experience a slanted media system in the United States. Our mainstream media only reveals what it wants you to know. Thank God for the internet and satelite television. Finally, we get to hear both sides of a story (maybe even a third and fourth side too) and we can then make an educated decision on what is being delivered. It is a known fact that our mainstream media is to the left and that they clearly leave out anything that does not jive with their ideological partisan views. I have read enough and seen enough over the years to understand that this really is true. It is interesting - that our mainstream media - is finally figuring out that they are tanking. Where were they in the 1990's? Were any of these intellectuals figuring out a way to survive in the era of the internet? Many of us "ordinary" citizens seen the writing on the wall years ago. Figure it out! And do so by not increasing our taxes - how about using free enterprise instead? Our wealth of knowledge with people in free enterprise far exceeds government and academic personnel - two groups who remain in "bubble worlds" created by the very establishments they are in. I highly oppose the government trying to control FREE SPEECH in America and that is exactly what this proposal is doing. My governemtn is propping up and funding with my tax dollars whatever it is they desire i.e. housing, cars, banks, appliances, newspapers?? It's a sad time for our country - and the fact that it is 2010 and this enormous, slow moving government of ours is contemplating what to do with America's (mainstream) media and the journalism field is ten years tooooo late. Figures. That's what happens when people live in a bubble. I say “NO!” to Obama and his administration’s efforts to censor, regulate, tax and control our free speech. Our government is not a business and does not make money like a business establishment. It just spends other peoples' monies (and it does so wrecklessly and biasly such as in this case before you).