Why don't you be consistent. Are you in favor of lower taxes or not? In your tea-party threads it would seem that you are in favor of lower taxes. Now it seems that you are not in favor of lower taxes. Why don't you make up your mind?
Too big? Have you seen the poor thing. When I go out to the driveway I can't tell if it is the Chronicle or the neighborhood shopper. It is shrinking like crazy.
It's not a bailout, just an adjustment to allow newspapers to be nonprofits. We wouldn't be givnig them money, so there's no indenture. Now that I see the suggestion, I wonder why newspapers aren't nonprofits anyway. ChrisP, we shouldn't be fixing bad business models, except where the business model is dictated by bad regulation or taxation. If our legislation is deterring nonprofit status among newspapers and we'd like to see them become nonprofits (which I don't see why not), then why not change the taxcode to allow them to do that?
Wrogn again.... I am just your average hard working American who loves his country and our capitolistic ways. I talke to thousands of people every year through my jobs (plural) and find that most of these people are of like mind and agree with the virtues I hold dear.
I never said I was for the newspaper bailout. I said that I was being sarcastic. I am for lower taxes and for the government to shrink substantiallly and stay the heck out of our lives. I am perfectly capable of making my own choices and living with the consequences; good or bad. I don't rely on my government to support me. All they need to do is secure my borders (which they are not), coin money (which they doing plenty of irresponsibily) and thats about it. This whole fed-zilla concept you guys love to promote is a dangerous thing.
God love them all, newspapers are a for-profit enterprise. They print news and features so people will buy them, although advertising is how they make their money. It worked for a long time and would work still had the world not changed. Even as a tax-free non-profit, where would the excess money go? To the government? To a charity? Spread equally among the workers and investors and ownership? Is this extended to electronic media, including the internet "news" groups? This sounds good and it strikes a sentimental chord in me, but it's just not realistic. The print medium -- and eventually all media -- would become lapdogs of those in power, and those in power would use the miedia to stay in power. Look at Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelan press or the drug lords and the press in South and Central American countries. The reign of newspapers is over. Let them die an honorable death.
There are a lot of nonprofits out there getting favorable tax treatment. Why would this one be a bailout? If they organize as a nonprofit, why shouldn't they get a tax break like any other nonprofit? Is my church getting a bailout? That's the current model, but it doesn't have to be. NPR does radio (and internet) news as a nonprofit; why couldn't the Chronicle? If we see their work as a public good, but the market won't provide a profit, nonprofit seems like a solution. Like any other nonprofit, the money would go to the operation, preservation and expansion of the organization. Excess money doesn't go to government, charity (it is a charity), workers or investors for any nonprofit. That's why they are nonprofit. Why the heck would the media be doomed to be lapdogs of those in power? And, if we were (for some strange reason) to assume they are doomed to be lapdogs, why couldn't they be organized as nonprofits?
You're good man, JuanValdez, but the world is changing. When you drastically alter environments, species die. Newspapers just can't compete in their new environment and still remain the same life form. Also, your NPR and PBS models are always begging for money, which tempts them to lean toward whoever will make donations. Sadly, the donations are never enough. Please don't turn newspapers into common street whores. Their clothes are tattered now, and some already have sold their souls, but the vast majority still can hold their heads high. Whose motto is it, "Death Before Dishonor?" I commend your wishful thinking, and I would love to have my despair and cynicism proved unfounded. However, the logic, as I see it, is inescapable.
Clearly, the newspapers are failing. This is a bailout because government is changing the rules to help them survive. Your chuch is getting no new favorable treatment, so I dont see how that applies. Allowing newspapers to become non-profits so they can get a bunch of tax breaks is a bailout. What other reason is there for doing this other than to bail them out? Is there some other policy goal I'm missing? And how micro-managed will they be by the politicians?
thumbs... Thanks. I'm just James White - no reputation at all. JV... My comment was much more generalized than this issue. I just sense a common theme in our leadership these days to come to the rescue of every failing business. Doesn't seem like a wise direction in general, though I'm sure it may be in some cases. In all seriousness, I appreciate your take on the issue as well as all the others. I don't disagree (or agree really either), but that's what I come to the D&D for... to read the open debate between folks who understand certain issues better than I do.
Yes, most newspapers have online editions, which make next to no money. Everyone knows the print edition is at some point doomed. However, as of yet, the internet is not a sustainable existence because add revenue is far less online than in print, for whatever reason. As such, giving the papers a tax break that could grant them a couple extra years to figure out a way to exist online doesn't seem like a terrible idea with little potential for a negative outcome. So what are the negatives?
I'd be inclined to consider carefully your fair-minded compromise, i.e., a tax holiday for, say, two years. The problem here is that, knowing Congress, lawmakers would continue the moratorium indefinitely in a quid pro quo scenario. Ad revenue on the internet is -- and probably will remain -- inexpensive because an advertiser can hire a graphic artist to create and post ads. Eventually, the government will find a way to tax the internet, but that won't help print newspapers. Driving viewers to the advertiser's web site will remain the province of cable.
Ad revenue on the internet is cheap because there's an absurd amount of available inventory and you can target your ads a lot better than a newspaper. If you're a flower shop, instead of positng an ad on Chron.com, you can have one at Google when someone types in "Houston Flower Shop". So much more effective, so the price for generic ads like Chron.com are crazy cheap to be competitive.
I agree with that assessment. Newspapers can never sell and create an ad as cheaply as the internet nor target an audience as accurately. Newspapers have tried "zoned" advertising, but that hasn't helped much.
I think that understanding cheapens the word "bailout." I'm not sure why it is that legislation is needed for newspapers to become nonprofits. If it was wise to do it, there should be no problem with the company just doing it. If a change in legislation is needed, then this is probably more a case of correcting over-regulation than it is of bailing anyone out. Besides that, tax breaks would not be the only impact. If a for-profit newspaper becomes a nonprofit, the nonprofit status will be much weightier than any tax-break. It means no more profits for the owner of the paper. Is it a bailout to allow an owner of an asset to relinquish cash flows from that asset? And, again I don't know why any politician would have any hand in any paper due to this. They wouldn't be nationalized or even beholden. They'd be like every other nonprofit. The only notable editorial sacrifice I can think of would be that they wouldn't be able to endorse political candidates anymore. The scrutiny of their tax-exempt status would probably be a bit higher than a church's, but not fundamentally different. In general, I agree with you. I think we're trying to preserve some businesses with unsustainable models and it's a mistake. But, this is not one of those things. This, I think, is a legislative tweak to give newspaper businesses the lattitude to make changes in their model to become sustainable. This is not buying time at all. This, I think, would not be a good idea and does more to sustain a bad model than a switch to a non-profit. This would, in fact, be a bailout and just give some taxpayer money to a for-profit company that is not producing sufficient value. As a nonprofit, we may sacrifice some tax revenue, but would not be paying any profits to the owner.
