Does Obama's "Bailout" Mean a Future for Print But Not Profits?

A campaign executive for Gavin Newsom's governor's race said I was "scraping the bottom of the barrel" when I posted a photo of the mayor's green recycling bin in connection with a column about the city's new mandatory composting regulation. Point and shaky pun taken.

But, despite my own best lowly efforts, the New York Times reports today that "Newspapers Have Not (yet) Hit Bottom" of the yowling plunge the profession's been in for several years. I don't know if that's good news -- that there is a bottom somewhere from which we presumably will bounce or creep up like the economy in general -- or just a smack in the face of last week's Rupert Murdoch/stock market optimism that deep cuts, vertiginous circulation price hikes and successful prayer services for ad revenue to stop sinking so drastically have finally meant some newspapers are back making a buck. Or a lot closer to it than they were a few months ago.

Other trends are looking potentially juicy to the parched army of worried journalists. Atlantic blogger and media star Andrew Sullivan makes a digital ask for his readers to buy subscriptions to the paper version of the Atlantic and he gets almost as many people signing up in two days for what usually takes a month. Such powerful pitches from big name brands "may be the future of print" says Mediaite.com.

Future?! Print!? We haven't heard those words used together very often lately. And certainly not on a Web site. Can all those death march stories be wrong? Maybe the imaginary black border around Jim Romenesko's must-read media blog -- with all the negative stories or angry, pyrrhic defenses of newspapers -- is turning a brighter shade of grey.

So, just when profit seems to be staging a more improbable comeback than Britney Spears, along comes Barack Obama supporting tax breaks for newspapers that are structured as NON-PROFITS. Come on. The President must like ironic timing. Or is he trying another socialist sleight-of-hand here?

There's already a bill in Congress that addresses this possibility, and there's so far been no Obama support for it. But with the way he monopolized the morning show broadcast window yesterday, maybe the government wants to exercise that kind of regulation of newspaper news in return for surrendering profit and paying less tax.

Which would at least mean they care, always a good sign in any relationship. And I'm for supporting journalism, even if it takes a vote in Congress to get there. (I sit on the board of a journalism nonprofit, the Center for Investigative Reporting.)

Mr. Obama says he's a "newspaper junkie," which is good for traditional newsrooms; more people than we thought are still slapping that vein for ink on paper; that's why readers are willingly shelling out higher prices. But is he hiding some kind of Nancy Reagan-style "Just Say No" campaign behind that non-profit offer?

Follow Phil Bronstein on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PhilBronstein

Comments

[MikeMor]

It's his smartest play for 2012. That, and a nice payback for the tremendous efforts they put in to getting him elected.
By 2013 he will cast them loose, no longer necessary. In any case it's a band aide, the next Republican president will shut the valve his or her first day in office.

[MikeMor]

It's his smartest, and only play for 2012. You always help the people that got you where you are. By Jan. 2013 he will gently cast them adrift. If he doesn't the Republican president surely will. Either way it's only a band aide.

[Paramendra Bhagat]

Digital will dominate but print will stay.

[WritusMaximus]

Another bailout on its merry way! In todays world, we must keep them indispensable newspapers afloat! Be they so thankful and repay Obama would nothing but good press!

Remember to stick to Religion and drop the darned Truth!

Today's Government Service, er, Public Service Announcement has been brought to you by New Minds For the New Age.

[GardenerNorCal]

Well if it can be mandated that we compost, and purchase health insurance, perhaps we can be mandated to purchase newspapers? Afterall wouldn't it be beneficial to the environment?

[akcrin]

It would be great if the papers lived as long as their readers. Plenty of those still getting the paper won't be switching to the internet in this lifetime and would really miss the local stuff. I'm an internet news fan, but if I wasn't reading the paper while folding it every morning (grrrr) I'd miss out on a huge amount of local news (and I doubt the NYT or HuffPost is going to be covering the latest in Pittsburgh goings-on any time soon!).

[steamboat]

We're in the age of the internet. So, of course, newspapers will suffer.

Besides, it wrong if the White House bails-out newspapers. (1) Because it will be with taxpayers money (youra and mine). So is the White House gonna bail-out every mom-and-pop store? Every retail franchise? And so on. (2) Its unfair (influence) and undemocratic. It only stands to reason, any newspaper bailed-out by this White House will tend to be Pro-White House on all the issues.

[GardenerNorCal]

Don't ever think that anyone is considering bailing out the moms and pops out there. They don't donate to campaigns. Retail was the hardest hit sector in this financial crash. No one felt their pain or bailed them out. That's why many of us are out of jobs. Our jobs didn't matter.

[steamboat]

My neighbor is( now was) a car salesman at a dealership. The dealerships closed he told me were much in due on what dealerships donated to the campaign

[RickO]

Print newspapers missed the boat. Any talk of a comeback makes about as much sense as the new version of Windows supporting punch cards. Maybe Google will come out with GoogleTelegram. Perhaps the Flaming Lips will release their next album on wire spool.

I realize that the advertisers are far more important than the subscribers which is why the ratio of ads to news keeps increasing and to make sure the big advertisers don't get upset, a lot of important stuff the should be above the fold on page 1 is relegated to the rarely read areas. But who am I to tell papers how to run their business.

But while newspapers figure out what went wrong and to do next, don't worry about us. We get our news online and there's plenty of other stuff to line the bird cage with...like the phone books we get getting dropped at the door.

[ron46032]

First off, the Internet is going to kill off standard new papers. The question is the content. Do people want to pay for the content. When so called news organizations like the New York Times actually just print yellow journalism, people can get that off the net now for free. Everyone has their opinion and who's going to pay for it? No one.

Now people will pay for news like the Wall Street Journal. That content informs people of actual facts and data that people need to do their jobs.

All of this is just free market speaking. You can see from radio and print what sells and what doesn't.

[S E Martin]

You're kidding, right?

The Wall Street Journal is owned by Murdoch. That's where you'll find yellow journalism.

Sure, the NYTimes prints errors once in a while--who doesn't--but I find it hard to believe you're calling the WSJ "actual facts."

Are you being serious?

[Aaror]

WSJ journalistic quality has dropped like a stone since Murdoch bought it, and circulation is following.
If you had said Barrons I would have believed you.
They understand that regardless of the content of the editorial pages, an investor paper (or magazine in this case) needs to print "just the facts," in the news stories. Otherwise investors lose money because of biased stories not including all the facts, and then find another more accurate news source.
The WSJ is soon joining other papers bought by Murdoch as republican papers that lose money.

[akcrin]

Have to agree with those disappointed with the WSJ; I deliver it and read it, and I can't believe people are still paying so much for so little. I really used to enjoy it, but now I just don't see what the big deal is.

[GardenerNorCal]

That's the main reason subscriptions have dropped. People are disappointed in the content and refuse to pay for it.

It was amazing during the Cheney reign that there were nary any dissenting voices. Why pay for what we received free on every nightly broadcast of the news? The only way to save print journalism is to mandate subscriptions like is proposed for health care. Forced consumption: the answer to all things corrupt.

[GOODREASON]

We have subscribed to WSJ for 30+ years. Lived in the same house in California during that time. Now that the neighborhood has "gone down" I guess there are not as many of these people reading a paper or probably not even connected to internet news period. Because, WSJ says they do no longer have anybody delivering in this part of town, so we cannot get it anymore. What a difference 30+ years does to a neighborhood and population of the USA.

[WilliePilgrim]

Sounds more like FDR style pragamatism when it comes to his willingness to try whatever might spark a fire and considering the mess he's inherited, the parallels might be more than coincidental, but it doesn't sound like he's thought it through.

[VikingQuest]

This whole media + Government thing is kind of scary . . .

If the Government holds the keys to papers sinking or swimming . . . this isn't good.

[Aaror]

Yes, but this isn't really about government controlled media.
Basically, if you change a newspaper from a for-profit to a non-profit, there will be tax breaks. Non-profit papers are less vulnerable to being bought out for partisan gain or propaganda, so it should be a win-win.
Of course, most foundations and non-profits tend to be left wing, but that is simply explained.
Left wing board members try to support the organization and keep it going.
Right wing board members try to figure out how to steal the principle of the organization and put it in their own pockets.
So long running organizations either are run by the left, or broke.

[moosala]

This makes a lot of sense to me... and of course the lack of a profit motive for a non-profit source of news will go a long way toward encouraging journalistic integrity, in theory resulting in a higher quality of news as well as a greater degree of objectivity. Sounds like a good, and very practical idea!