Should Government Bailout Journalism?

Absolutely not, but Lee Bollinger tries to make a case for it in the Wall Street Journal.  Mary Katharine Ham makes this astute observation on Twitter about the piece:

Bollinger explains journalists are but helpless baby sparrows, need gov't regurgitate into their mouths for nourishment

Under the First Amendment we have a "free press", but let's get serious. There are two types of freedom involved - the freedom from government interference and the freedom to print or publish whatever you want.  The press is only free for the person who owns it. For instance, if I submit a piece to the Los Angeles Times do I have a First Amendment right to have it printed? No. But can the publisher of the Times choose whatever he wants to print in his paper? Yes. To him, he has a free press. To me, I'm only free to publish what I want in media I control (like this blog, but even that is subject to limits imposed by Google).

The moment the government starts subsidizing journalism the concept of a free press disappears because now the government owns it.  They may claim that they won't take editorial control, but anyone who wants to keep the government funds coming will know better than to challenge the beast.  There will be de facto censorship.  If you think the media is biased to the left now, just wait until their checks are signed by Obama.

Much of old line journalism is a dinosaur.  It's services are no longer needed or wanted.  Rush Limbaugh had this to say recently about the nightly network news broadcasts:

By 6:30 at night the only people who do not know what's happened that day are either drunk, stoned, or 85 years old and don't know how to use a computer and don't know how to tune a cable channel.

The old joke goes that most of CBS' audience is made up of people who died while watching their channel and the TV was left on until their bodies were discovered.

In reality, we don't need nightly newscasts.  We don't need daily newspapers.  What's the purpose of taking a paper when by the time you receive it you already know everything that's in it, including the actual printed stories because you already read them online?  I quit taking a paper three years ago and haven't missed a thing.

Journalism is an industry which needs to adapt to the times like every other business, and if that means fewer news outlets and the complete collapse of newpapers or TV/radio networks, so be it.  There are plenty of ways to get information these days.