Hey Rolling Stone… isn’t that the OPPOSITE of a Free Press?
Pop quiz… and this is one that Rolling Stone will fail.
What is a free press? It’s a news source that doesn’t have to ask permission before publishing a story that would expose, embarrass, contradict, or otherwise criticize the government in power.
What is the difference between a free press and something like Russia’s Pravda or Canada’s CBC? Simple… one gets their income independently of the government, and the other relies on the government for their daily bread.
Liberals like to talk about ‘being in the pocket of… (insert demonized cause here)’.
Have a look at what Rolling Stone (whose journalistic ‘independence’ ClashDaily has recently reported on, you will remember they actually lost a court case about a bogus rape story!) is proposing in light of what we just mentioned.
Smack in the middle of the fawning article that embarrasses itself as it indulges Obama’s every conspiracy whim (like blaming Fox News, rather than his incompetence for destroying his party), Rolling Stone’s publisher adds what he probably thinks is a ‘throwaway line’.
“Maybe the news business and the newspaper industry, which is being destroyed by Facebook, needs a subsidy so we can maintain a free press?” Wenner asked. –Washington Examiner
And Obama’s answer is exactly the answer a Pravda-reading, CBC watching Dictator would appreciate and love. Give the government more power over its critics, by making them partners rather than adversaries.
The challenge is, the technology is moving so fast that it’s less an issue of traditional media losing money. The New York Times is still making money. NPR is doing well. Yeah, it’s a nonprofit, but it has a growing audience. The problem is segmentation. We were talking about the issue of a divided country. Good journalism continues to this day. There’s great work done in Rolling Stone. The challenge is people are getting a hundred different visions of the world from a hundred different outlets or a thousand different outlets, and that is ramping up divisions. It’s making people exaggerate or say what’s most controversial or peddling in the most vicious of insults or lies, because that attracts eyeballs. And if we are gonna solve that, it’s not going to be simply an issue of subsidizing or propping up traditional media; it’s going to be figuring out how do we organize in a virtual world the same way we organize in the physical world. We have to come up with new models. –Washington Examiner
Stop for a moment and ask yourself what would have happened if someone who knew that tax revenue was a major part of his news outlet’s income stream had happened on the Watergate Story back in the 70’s. What if ‘Deep Throat’ was worried that his paper would suddenly be off the ‘good’ list for ‘acceptable news sources’?
What if his EDITOR know that jobs could be on the line if this unnamed source claiming Nixon had done bad things was presented with the story. Would he run it if it might endanger the stabity of the News Outlet? If he had to choose between his livelihood and his professional obligations, can we be sure he would act AGAINST his own best interests?
Because that’s the process outlining how even good people can become corrupted.
So why would we POSSIBLY want the Government to become an income stream for the rewarding and punishing of political friends and foes? Why do we want the Government to define who is and is not ‘fake’ news.
It was in this very administration that one of the most powerful weapons at their disposal — the IRS was targeting political rivals.
If they can ever get this level of power, how could the people POSSIBLY keep their power in check?