Dan Rather wants Obama to save the news business | Media Czar?

[FrankRep]

Dan Rather wants Obama to save the news business (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/1568)


Jack Kenny | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
03 August 2009


Will a "media czar" be next? At a time when the federal government has already taken over much of the country's financial industry, is a partner in "Government Motors," and may soon be taking over the healthcare industry, former CBS News reporter and anchorman Dan Rather has called for a government commission to help save the nation's news media.

In a speech that drew little attention in the national press, Rather said the White House should come up with recommendations to save journalism jobs and create new business models to help news organizations survive. "I personally encourage the president to establish a White House commission on public media," Rather said, in what the Aspen Daily News described as an "impassioned speech" to the Aspen Institute in Colorado. In an interview earlier that day, the veteran broadcaster explained why he seeks government involvement in the news industry.

"A truly free and independent press is the red beating heart of democracy and freedom," he said. "This is not something just for journalists to be concerned about, and the loss of jobs and the loss of newspapers, and the diminution of the American press' traditional role of being the watchdog on power. This is something every citizen should be concerned about." Rather, who currently hosts "Dan Rather Reports" on HDNet, blamed both corporate and political influence for what he called the "dumbing down and sleazing up" of network news reports and a decline of investigative and international journalism.

Rather's call for help comes at a time when the big three over-the-air networks — ABC, NBC and CBS — have been losing viewers to the cable channels for years and a number of daily newspaper, including the Rocky Mountain News in Colorado, have gone out of business. Yet it is ironic that he should be calling on the White House for help while deploring "political influence" on the news media. A "free and independent press" depends on a determination to keep government out of the news business, as reflected in the First Amendment's mandate that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press." Saving jobs and creating new business models for the news industry is not among the responsibilities of the federal government. Nor would such assistance likely inspire the news media to become more vigilant in its much-needed role of "watchdog on power."

Perhaps Rather's trust in a benevolent government has something to do with having an administration more to his liking in Washington. It is hard to imagine him calling for a White House commission on the public media during the administration of George W. Bush. CBS declined to renew Rather's contract after he allegedly used forged documents during the 2004 campaign in a 60 Minutes report claiming Bush was AWOL during much of the time he was in the Texas National Guard.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/1568

[acptulsa]

The banks could have avoided their plight by doing their jobs. The auto industry could have avoided its plight by doing its job. Guess who else aren't doing their jobs?

Soon the big banks will be so beholden to the government that the public won't be able to stand their policies, and won't do business with them unless forced to. Soon GM and Chrysler will be so beholden to the government that they'll be building what the government wants them to build--not what customers want. And the media? Already there--which is why they're hurting.

Let the government save them, I guess. After all, it's the STD they got from climbing in bed with that same government that's killing them.

He blames political influence for the media's state--rightly--but then calls for more political influence before even finishing the paragraph. He failed before he even got the box open.

[BenIsForRon]

For the record, I don't think Dan Rather is talking about government saving the big three. I think he's more in support of independent outlets. The article in the OP doesn't provide a link to the speech, so its hard to know in what context Rather is speaking.

[FrankRep]

I'm trying to find the audio.


Dan Rather wants Obama to help save the news (http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/135834)


Aspen Daily News
July 29, 2009


Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather called on President Barack Obama to form a White House commission to help save the press Tuesday night in an impassioned speech at the Aspen Institute.

“I personally encourage the president to establish a White House commission on public media,” the legendary newsman said.

Such a commission on media reform, Rather said, ought to make recommendations on saving journalism jobs and creating new business models to keep news organizations alive.

At stake, he argued, is the very survival of American democracy.

“A truly free and independent press is the red beating heart of democracy and freedom,” Rather said in an interview yesterday afternoon. “This is not something just for journalists to be concerned about, and the loss of jobs and the loss of newspapers, and the diminution of the American press’ traditional role of being the watchdog on power. This is something every citizen should be concerned about.”

Rather, who has been a working reporter for more than six decades and currently hosts “Dan Rather Reports” on HDNet, pointed out that there are precedents for such national commissions, which have been used to help other at-risk industries.

Corporate and political influence on newsrooms, along with the conflation of news and entertainment, has created what Rather called “the dumbing down and sleazing up of what we see on the news.”

It has also thinned the amount of investigative and international journalism. The latter loss of correspondents covering America’s two foreign wars, Rather opined, is both a critical detriment to the nation and a disservice to our troops.

Tears welled in the lifelong reporter’s eyes as he discussed the dwindling number of war correspondents.

“I feel particularly strong about coverage of the wars,” he said, noting that covering the war in Afghanistan is his top priority on his HDNet program. “No apologies, both as a journalist and as a citizen I just can’t stand to leave those guys out there, fighting, dying, bleeding, getting torn up and say, ‘Look, it’s page 14 news.’ Or ‘Sorry, not on tonight’s newscast.’ It’s an example of the problem, that and not having the watchdogs.”

The free press, as established by the First Amendment to the Constitution, ought to operate as a public trust, not solely as a money-making endeavor, Rather argued, and it’s time the government make an effort to ensure the survival of the free press. If not the government, he suggested, then an organization like the Carnegie Foundation should take it on. Without action, he predicted, America will lose its independent media.

“If we do nothing more than stand back and hope that innovation alone will solve this crisis,” he said, “then our best-trained journalists will lose their jobs.”


SOURCE:
http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/135834

[Feenix566]

The mainstream media outlets are losing viewers because they have more competition from Internet news outlets. That's why they're failing. They're not delivering what their customers want. Rather's plea is exactly like the pleas of GM and Chrysler. They're begging the government to force their customers to buy what they're selling, regardless of what the customers want.

[BenIsForRon]

I think you guys are overreacting, I don't think he's calling for a bailout of CBS or NYT, I think he's talking about ways to ensure that we still have independent media. I didn't see any policy discussion in his article, but maybe he's talking about some new FCC like things.

Like back in the 50's, the government forced TV stations that used public airwaves (no way you can get around that, they're public, you can't simply OWN a frequency) to carry a certain amount of news programming as a public service. Now, the news has basically merged with the entertainment sector, and that is part of the reason why it is worthless on the major networks.

[Feenix566]

I think you guys are overreacting, I don't think he's calling for a bailout of CBS or NYT, I think he's talking about ways to ensure that we still have independent media. I didn't see any policy discussion in his article, but maybe he's talking about some new FCC like things.

Like back in the 50's, the government forced TV stations that used public airwaves (no way you can get around that, they're public, you can't simply OWN a frequency) to carry a certain amount of news programming as a public service. Now, the news has basically merged with the entertainment sector, and that is part of the reason why it is worthless on the major networks.

So, the government should force the media to do things, and that will make them more independent?

[FrankRep]

Bailing Out (Nationalizing) Newspapers (http://www.jbs.org/us-constitution-blog/4672-bailing-out-nationalizing-newspapers)


Ann Shibler | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
30 March 2009



For decades, major newspapers in the U.S. have been the mouthpieces for the liberal agenda, so why not make it official, bail out the practically extinct dinosaurs, nationalize them, and and create a media system openly controlled by government?

Many major newspapers are facing financial woes, either due to poor management or the current economic squeeze. Ad revenues have fallen dramatically. Some are shedding staff; others reducing services in an effort to make ends meet.

Gannett, publishers of USA Today and hundreds of small-town papers, forced their employees into taking a week-long furlough, saving millions. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a Hearst corporation holding, stopped printing and went with an online edition only just this month. The San Francisco Chronicle says they might have to shut down. And the Tribune Company which owns the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, the Baltimore Sun, and others filed for bankruptcy last December, and on and on it goes.

In the nationalization spirit of the day, this has sparked Senator Benjamin Cardin of Maryland to introduce legislation to bail out privately owned, for-profit U.S. newspapers (http://digitaljournal.com/article/269817). "We are losing our newspaper industry," Cardin was quoted as saying. "The economy has caused an immediate problem, but the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken, and that is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy."

Cardin is hopeful that these once private enterprises will operate as non-profits, just like public television. His Newspaper Revitalization Act [PDF Download (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s673is.txt.pdf)], currently before the Senate Finance Committee, would allow newspaper companies to report on all issues including political issues, but the endorsement of political candidates would be disallowed.

For years Americans have sneered at the Russians for their state-controlled media. But that’s exactly what we’ll have if this passes, to a much greater extent than we now have. Just think, the New York Times could soon officially be the equivalent of Pravda.

It’s almost laughable to hear the liberals citing Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy on a free press, twisting and spinning it away from it’s original meaning. Jefferson knew that over time principles are corrupted, warning us to ever be on guard against such corruption and the tyranny that follows.

Tom Fiedler, the former executive editor of the Miami Herald and current dean of Boston University’s College of Communication, quipped: "I truly believe that no democracy can remain healthy without an equally healthy press. Thus it is in democracy's interest to support the press in the same sense that the human being doesn't hesitate to take medicine when his or her health is threatened."

That was echoed by Cardin while bemoaning the death of newspapers when he said it “is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy."

The worst is from Robert Schlesinger who has the audacity to blog under the name of Thomas Jefferson (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/03/12/nationalize-newspapers-or-bail-them-out-but-we-cant-let-them-disappear.html). He praised the fourth estate’s role, supposedly unbiased, in presenting to Americans the news of the day saying, “The media plays a key role not only on informing the citizenry in terms of literally reporting the day’s events, but also in getting behind them and and in watch-dogging the institutions and people who have huge power over our lives -- be they public officials, corporate titans, other journalists and so fourth.” And then he added, “Maybe it’s time for local governments to declare eminent domain and start making the local papers public property.” (There’s an understanding of constitutional principles, goodness!)

In actuality, Jefferson understood that a free press, not a nationalized, government-controlled press, was necessary to a free nation. He was the ultimate believer in the free exchange of ideas where truth would eventually triumph. Here’s just a few of his quotations:



[This is] a country which is afraid to read nothing, and which may be trusted with anything, so long as its reason remains unfettered by law. --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Milligan, 1816

Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe. --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816

I am... for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents. --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799

Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it. --Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1786

The materials now bearing on the public mind will infallibly restore it to its republican soundness... if the knowledge of facts can only be disseminated among the people. --Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1799


And while championing a free press, Jefferson also knew to what extent the press could fail in it’s duties to the country by becoming a voice for propaganda.



The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper. --Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785

Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. --Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807

The Chief Magistrate cannot enter the arena of the newspapers. --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1811

It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807.


Read them and weep.


SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/us-constitution-blog/4672-bailing-out-nationalizing-newspapers

[BenIsForRon]

So, the government should force the media to do things, and that will make them more independent?

In some areas, yes. Let me explain.

There has to be some form of government over public airwaves. Take radio for example. There is only a limited number of frequencies: 87.5 -107 in the FM. If you had a free for all on those frequencies, then you would have nothing but static everywhere you'd go, because of all the interference. Because certain businesses obtain the rights to use a spectrum over a certain area, there must also be strings attached, like emergency broadcasts, news, weather, and so forth.

Of course, now people like Clear Channel Radio are basically dumbing down their news to FOX/CNN levels, so its not really working out. I don't really know of any solid solutions to this problem. Maybe there needs to be some regulations to keep news seperate from the rest of the corporate structure?

[BenIsForRon]

And FrankRep, I think you're distorting the issue, I'm pretty sure Dan Rather is not talking about bailing out failing papers.

[Working Poor]

Dan Rather wants Obama to save the news business

yea right

[Epic]

In some areas, yes. Let me explain.

There has to be some form of government over public airwaves. Take radio for example. There is only a limited number of frequencies: 87.5 -107 in the FM. If you had a free for all on those frequencies, then you would have nothing but static everywhere you'd go, because of all the interference. Because certain businesses obtain the rights to use a spectrum over a certain area, there must also be strings attached, like emergency broadcasts, news, weather, and so forth.

Of course, now people like Clear Channel Radio are basically dumbing down their news to FOX/CNN levels, so its not really working out. I don't really know of any solid solutions to this problem. Maybe there needs to be some regulations to keep news seperate from the rest of the corporate structure?

I think voluntary cooperation would make sure that people did not interfere. It's just not in their economic incentive to do so.

A similar example, the USB computer standard for mouses and keyboards was not made by government. So how would various companies agree on one standard? Wouldn't they each have their own? No, it's not in their economic incentive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus

[Stary Hickory]

Radio is not even that crowded.....the notion is moot. Cable channels don't suffer these limitations. And papers and the internet are also not physically limited. The news stations need to compete for an audience. If they cannot compete it means they are not interesting or trusted enough.

No government interference in the press....the suggestion is absurd.

[pcosmar]

And FrankRep, I think you're distorting the issue, I'm pretty sure Dan Rather is not talking about bailing out failing papers.

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9485/EyeLies_IncPen_FreeRepublic.gif

[BenIsForRon]

I think voluntary cooperation would make sure that people did not interfere. It's just not in their economic incentive to do so.

A similar example, the USB computer standard for mouses and keyboards was not made by government. So how would various companies agree on one standard? Wouldn't they each have their own? No, it's not in their economic incentive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus

This issue is a little different. There isn't a scarcity of USB ports, but there is a scarcity of radio frequencies. I'm sure some companies in a region would find a way to work out something, but there could be problems. For example, some companies could say screw what everybody else is doing, I'm going to buy the most powerful broadcast tower and drown out everybody else's signal.

[Stary Hickory]

This issue is a little different. There isn't a scarcity of USB ports, but there is a scarcity of radio frequencies. I'm sure some companies in a region would find a way to work out something, but there could be problems. For example, some companies could say screw what everybody else is doing, I'm going to buy the most powerful broadcast tower and drown out everybody else's signal.

There are not even a scarcity of radio stations to be honest, and in the grand scheme of things just let them compete for the air waves. AM radio was dead about what 25 years ago? It got resurrected by a lot of conservative radio hosts, and now there is talk about there not being enough bandwidth. Which is silly, even now there is more room on the airwaves than there is an audience to listen.

[jclay2]

Got to love it, only an idiot like rather would come up with something like this. Partner with government to create independant press. Brilliant Danny Boy, just brilliant.

[FrankRep]

Twist of the year.

Dan Rather sues to return CBS execs to $70 million suit


Reuters
Aug 3, 2009


Former TV news anchor Dan Rather sued CBS Chief Executive Leslie Moonves and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward on Monday in a bid to have them reinstated as defendants in his $70 million lawsuit against the network.

In a lawsuit filed in New York State Supreme Court, Rather accused the two men of fraud relating to his claim that CBS made him a scapegoat in a scandal over a 2004 report on then-President George W. Bush's military record.

"These are the two individuals who committed the crime on behalf of CBS and we're holding them personally responsible," said Rather's lawyer, Martin Gold.

Rather claims CBS breached his contract and its fiduciary duty in part by not giving him enough on-air assignments after he was removed in March 2005 after 24 years as anchor of the "CBS Evening News."

CBS has appealed to have Rather's entire 2007 lawsuit thrown out, and the appeal is being considered by the state appellate division.

"If anything, this latest tactic confirms that the whole charade is more a tiresome plea for attention by Rather than a serious lawsuit," CBS said in a statement.

Moonves and Heyward were both named in Rather's original 2007 lawsuit. But in April 2008, New York State Supreme Court Judge Ira Gammerman rejected Rather's charge that CBS executives damaged his future job prospects, saying Rather could not support the claim.

Gammerman also threw out a fraud claim against CBS on grounds that Rather could not prove he had lost any income as a result of the network's actions.

But last month, Gammerman accepted an amended complaint that once again included a fraud claim against CBS, after Rather's attorney argued Rather's income had been reduced by several million dollars following his departure from CBS.

Gold said he expected the claims against the executives to be reinstated for the same reason.

In its report on Bush, CBS later acknowledged that documents used in the September 8, 2004, story could not be authenticated. The network aired the report two months before the presidential election pitting Bush against Democrat John Kerry.

Rather now produces an hour-long news program, "Dan Rather Reports," for cable channel HDNet, available to viewers with high-definition TV sets.


SOURCE:
http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE5725T320090803

[BenIsForRon]

There are not even a scarcity of radio stations to be honest, and in the grand scheme of things just let them compete for the air waves. AM radio was dead about what 25 years ago? It got resurrected by a lot of conservative radio hosts, and now there is talk about there not being enough bandwidth. Which is silly, even now there is more room on the airwaves than there is an audience to listen.

There is on FM, near any major city just about every frequency is taken.

It seems like you're inferring that it's impossible to take up all the radio bandwidth. That's totally not the case, radio waves occur over a very small range of wavelengths.

And like I said, what if some jackass bought a powerful transmitter and drowned out another station? You have to have a way to divide up the public airwaves.

[Matt Collins]

Personal friend, DC attorney, and Campaign for Liberty member, Nicole Kardell, goes on Russian TV to discuss the new "anti-czar" bill :D

YouTube - Are Republicans trying to get rid of Obama appointees with an anti-czar bill? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_551HoBLhU)

[Eric Arthur Blair]

a lot of the newspapers and TV stations are praying for an uplift in advertising which is not going to come even when the economy rebounds. The quicker they all go broke the better. The New York Times, The Guardian and The Irish Times are the three main newspapers I can't wait to see go out of business. I will be having a little party for each one a wake sort off.