So the co-opting of the newspaper business will be complete when newspapers make make no "endorsements" -- which means in real terms for non-profits that they will remain silent on all issues of political controversy. Great. Just what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he said, "If I were to choose between a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I would undoubtedly choose government with newspapers that are too timid to report any issue of concern to the body politic."

Can't wait for a new motto on the masthead of a newspaper: "We report, you decide", or perhaps "We can no longer offer opinions, so instead we'll selectively report facts that support our view".

"We can no longer offer opinions, so instead we'll selectively report facts that support our view".

So nothing new at the Oregonian's news department then?

Public-private, political-apolitical, pea soup-kitchen sink . . . I am all confused.

But there is a wonderful pictorial for all this labeling nonsense . . .

The incredible animal morphs
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2340200.ece

I think that the average citizen, or aggregation thereof, should have what the incorporated news folks already have in Oregon, an exemption from treatment as a PAC so long as their advertisement dollars do not influence their editorializing. How many of the folks that contribute (time or money, interchangeably) to any political thing derive their donation (time or cash) from advertisement revenue? Scant few.

I have long pondered whether I should form a corporation with same name as my given name so that I could gain the extra privileges granted to a corporation, or rather to the incorporators and those with a beneficial interest, that are denied to anyone claiming that they are only a lowly flesh and blood natural person.

The selectivity of the exemption is all that seems to matter, as they are uniquely saintly . . . rather than just politically connected, first and foremost as to the political exemption itself. This is not the least bit political, obviously.

It's an interesting idea... you'd also get an ostensibly-local board to oversee the nonprofit... not that it would give the community any more power (just look at OPB), but then we would at least be responsible 100% for the crappy quality of our local paper...

On second thought, horrible idea. I cannot endure yet another pledge drive...

Government oversight has worked so well of late!

Sorry, my attitude is to let 'em burn if they can't make a profit.

I can (and do) read liberal, conservative, libertarian, and any other viewpoint I wish to explore. I can do it instantly, up to date, when I want to, on line.

Yes, I'd pay for the web pages I use. No, I won't pay for the Oregonian's (or any other) print media's one sided, day late and dollar short information.

I can (and do) read liberal, conservative, libertarian, and any other viewpoint I wish to explore. I can do it instantly, up to date, when I want to, on line.

ah, yes, the old "I can get it online" concept.

problem is, AP estimates that somewhere close to 85% of "news" reported online is *secondary*--that is, it derives its information from those print and other non-online sources that should "make a profit or die."

I don't believe in a newspaper "bailout", but those who believe that somehow all the bloggers and "news" sites actually go out and do a lot of investigative journalism are, at best, going to be extremely disappointed in the near future.

Soon we'll be like France where the papers have to ask the govt for permission to publish.

It ought to be good for a few more years of glowing praise though.

I don't believe in a newspaper "bailout", but those who believe that somehow all the bloggers and "news" sites actually go out and do a lot of investigative journalism are, at best, going to be extremely disappointed in the near future.

eco,

I doubt most people involved enough to be interested in this subject are as myopic as you seem to characterize them. Similarly, I also doubt that "first-hand" news gatherers will ever want for an outlet.

Change is hard - so human nature doesn't.

The question is whether the passive news consumers will be as manipulable as they currently are vis-a-vis newspapers.

Methinks not.

...or at least "mehopes" not.

Of course there's always TV.

nevermind

It's a very interesting option, and I don't see why it shouldn't be enabled. It wouldn't be a good fit for every newspaper, of course, but for some it could make a lot of sense.

Hmmm.

We don't really need facts from the news media. We just need to know what we should think.

We are getting close to leaving the Republic.

We don't really need facts from the news media. We just need to know what we should think.

Amen, brother.

I would really miss endorsements from the Oregonian.

Those endorsements usually confirm who I am voting against in many contests. If they are acceptable to the Oregonian, they usually are a part of the same gang that has been screwing up PDX and Oregon for so long.

Gee - We get to read the same biased crap in the Oregonian, but don't get to read a half page of editorial nonsense. Such a deal!

Blog the papers over and over until they have "fallen and can't get up". They are completely useless and create more problems than they solve. Global whiners and sustainability psuedo-science were their last words RIP. Only Al Gore and Hollyweird will mourn their demise.

Also I call those endorsements you mention spindorsements. I agree they are very helpful in informing who people should not support.

The publication of the Oregonian is critical......how will I start my wood stove fires if they fold???

Fred- Use a Kindle!

"... be like France where the papers have to ask the govt for permission to publish."

No, papers DO NOT "have to ask" permission. Le Monde (Paris) is one of the premier best world newspapers, as is world-class goodness the reports of Agence France Press. One result clearly seen during the 2001-08 plague of stinking propaganda catapulted on US in a neck-deep pile, was that the whole time Europeans incl. French knew more, in advance ... such as that there were no WMDs, and 9/11 was staged, and Bushies premeditated and committed hitlerian war crimes.
linknotes:
people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions

rebooting.personaldemocracy.com/using-internet-create-informed-citizenry

---

Example demonstrates non-profit newspaper:

A century-old nonprofit socialized newspaper with informative features and news reporters. NW Labor Press, March 20, 2008 Volume 110 Number 6 --
Circulation - The Northwest Labor Press has the third-largest paid subscription base in the Portland metropolitan area. Only The Oregonian and Vancouver Columbian exceed this figure. ... about 50,000 homes.

---

"...whether the passive news consumers will be as manipulable as they currently are .... Change is hard - so human nature doesn't.

An interesting point in something I read recently, said that the more educated and informed of a subject a person is, the more resistance there is to changing his or her conclusion(s) by only one or a few new (contrary) findings or facts. Which seems reasonable. But the headline had sensationalized it to sound surprising: 'Educated people are the least flexible,' or something like that. (I can't find the link.)

Anyway, from it, it seems that "passive news consumers" are forever easily "manipulable" since they don't adopt or develop personal bedrock beliefs or consummate knowledge. And, yes, "change is hard," at least it takes an effort; but in mature fields of study, (such as powerlust in the human nature, as the founding fathers Constituted by-laws and divisions of responsibilities, styled in the Iroquois Nations fashion, to deal with the age-old long-studied subject of power madness), hardly anything new ever develops or is found which effects a changed knowing of the subject.

But you have to change, or better change, where your condition worsens going on by limited information, (the way the GOP shrinks as its 'beliefs' cause more damage; or, 20 years of life exposure going on in a caustic environment causes debilitation and disease). The more the newspaper power-brokers are sequestered as 'elites' and pampered in personal profit by only printing ads for business, the less the news they vend is working for us, or Portland. or Oregon.

Tenske...glad you are back. I missed you.

It would be more transparent if the Oregonian were made a government media agency. It already is, by and large, the mouthpiece for the existing government regimes in Portland and Salem. Just make it official.