MSM Bailout?

The MSM is dying.  It’s been happening for some time.  The Internet, changing habits, and alternate news sources have all taken its toll on media (print in particular).  This has gotten attention from Washington, and the latest foray into bailing out the MSM has come from Henry Waxman, as discussed here at Accuracy in Media.

Rep. Henry Waxman trekked from Capitol Hill to Federal Trade Commission headquarters today to deliver a message to journalists and news consumers: All of you need to reach a consensus about working with the government in order to bail out the struggling news industry.

The California Democrat, who chairs the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, didn’t say it quite so bluntly, but his point was clear. “Government’s going to have to be involved, in one way or the other,” to save journalism from an ongoing “market failure” that will only worsen without intervention, Waxman said.

This is frightening.  While we already know that the MSM is in the tank with the left, actually giving government influence via bailout money will complete the farce.  “They wouldn’t abuse it,” you say?  Well, ask the executives at the banks that received bailouts, or the CEO of GM, or Chrysler’s creditors.  They’re not hard to find, just look under the bus!   Government assistance comes with strings attached.  It always has, and it always will.  If the media takes money from the government, there WILL be content “advise” given, and it will be followed!  It’s happening already, funding makes it a ironclad deal!

“Congress should adopt legislation that would provide substantial additional resources” to fund public-service media, said Mark MacCarthy, a communications professor in the culture and technology program at Georgetown University. He said Waxman “gave us the path to legislative success in that area.”

Several speakers likened government intervention in the media market to past instances of federal funding for publicly valuable services, such as public safety, education and libraries.

“As a civil society, we don’t trust the open market or the free market” to provide such valuable services, said Jon McTaggart, the senior vice president and chief operating officer of American Media Group, and neither should the media be allowed to suffer because of market forces.

Translation: We don’t trust the people to consume the media that we want.  They keep listening to Rush Limbaugh and watching Fox News.  They’re finding out too much!  Make it stop!!!

Seriously though.  “…don’t trust the free market??”  Or, is it just that when the people choose, they are turning away from the MSM in droves?  This is typical liberal condescension when it comes to the public, and part fear.  CNN & MSNBC, in particular, have ratings problems; newspapers around the country are closing or laying off workers.  However, talk radio has never been stronger, and FOX now has ratings far in excess of their all of their competition…COMBINED!

Is the technology and changing society challenging the MSM, or is it the content?  I would say both.  Print is dead, when you can get a story on line in 15 seconds versus waiting until the next day for news that is hours old, what are you going to choose?

Then, I believe the content is a significant factor.  To take a closer look, let’s examine this from NewsMax.

NEW YORK — More bad news for journalists: The percentage of people who believe their work is inaccurate and biased continues to grow.

Nearly two-thirds _ 63 percent _ of Americans surveyed by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press believe that news stories are often inaccurate. That’s a flip from when Pew first asked that question in 1985, when 34 percent of respondents believed stories were frequently inaccurate.

Pew also found that 74 percent of respondents believe stories tend to favor one side of an issue over another, up from 66 percent two years ago.

Those trends tend to go hand in hand, said Andrew Kohut, the Pew center’s director.

“If people believe that news reports are often biased, they will say they’re inaccurate,” he said.

The slippage in attitudes toward the press primarily comes from Democrats. Republicans have long been critical of the news media, and now Democrats are joining them. Most Democrats (59 percent) say that news reports are often inaccurate, compared with 43 percent two years ago, Pew said.

Partisan attitudes toward cable news networks have hardened in the past two years, just as many of their programs become more overtly partisan.

Nearly three-quarters of Republicans surveyed (72 percent) view Fox News Channel positively, with 43 percent of Democrats feeling that way, Pew said. CNN had the opposite results: 75 percent of Democrats view the network favorably, while 44 percent of Republicans do. MSNBC, which has become more overtly liberal in primetime over the past year, has 60 percent approval from Democrats, with only 34 percent from Republicans.

So, as this trend continues to grow, the MSM loses even more readers and viewers.  I think that this is the free market at work.  People are viewing the MSM as increasingly biased, and they are turning the page or changing the channel.  I find it most interesting that the greatest shift in opinion against the MSM is coming from the Democrats.  I’d love to see some more in-depth analysis into what these Democrats believe politically.  I would have a difficult time believing that the hard left is among this shifting population.  At the same time, I would venture to guess that these shifting Democrats are moderates.

Where are these viewers going?  Well, the segments of the media that are growing are talk radio and FOX.  If that is the case, are these alienated Democrats finding a whole new world of stories that the MSM has tried to avoid?  Are they finding out about ClimateGate for the first time?  Are they finding out about Obama’s appointees and what they think and say?  Are they finding out about the rampant corruption in ACORN?  Are they seeing the thuggery of the SEIU?  Now, I’m thinking that most reasonable people, hearing about some of these issues for the first time, may have some long held beliefs challenged.  Does that serve the Democrats well?  I think the reader can come to that conclusion.

The sad thing is that the MSM could probably stop this drain.  All they would have to do is cover stories and present all sides of an issue.  They could also stop waiting for the administration to throw them some crumbs on which to report, and actually out and find the stories.  For that matter, they can read blogs and actually look into what we are saying.  After all, how many times has stuff from Verum Serum appeared on FOX?  How many times have Michelle Malkin or Andrew Beirbart broke stories, or have provided analysis?

I think one major factor prevents this; they are biased to the left, and simply don’t want to go against their beliefs.

It strikes me as if the MSM wants to have their cake, and eat it too.  They want to ignore stories, misrepresent events, openly support candidates, hurl accusations and insults at Conservatives, Independents, and Libertarians, and then have people continue to watch or read their “product?”  Why would I watch MSNBC when their on-air staff has called me a racist, redneck, teabagger, and terrorist?  Are they getting that, or are they that naive?

At the moment, the MSM still has a choice.  If they take government money, that choice will evaporate faster than their ratings.