For Newspapers - A Bailout And A Leash

So, President Barack Obama is open to another bailout. This time, he wants to bail out newspapers. Declaring newspapers, “absolutely critical to the health of our democracy,” Obama said of the newspaper bailouts now being considered by the Congress, “I’ll be happy to look at them.”

“Journalistic integrity, you know, fact-based reporting, serious investigative reporting, how to retain those ethics in all these different new media and how to make sure that it’s paid for, is really a challenge,” Obama said. “But it’s something that I think is absolutely critical to the health of our democracy.”

Of course the investigative reporting that Obama wishes to see continued is anti-Republican muckraking. And it is that sort of lopsided scrutiny that most newspapers confine themselves to. For example, it was more than a week after the scandal broke on the internet and Fox News before New York Times readers learned that the Democrat-affiliated ACORN was busted by freelance investigators for facilitating underage sex slavery. And because papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post still serve as navigation beacons for the rest of the mainstream news media, few from that swamp took notice either. For example, when asked about the ACORN scandal recently, ABC news anchor Charlie Gibson confessed total ignorance.

Considering how much taxpayer money ACORN receives and how much influence it wields, “serious investigative reporting” would have been called for. But not even a long series of voter registration fraud cases ignited much interest.

But aside from keeping his allies, foot soldiers and guerilla warriors clothed and fed, Barack Obama has another interest in bailing out newspapers. Adding newspapers to the list of government dependents increases his power. Already Obama has two major US automobile manufacturers hanging on his trophy wall. The Obama Administration owns majority shares in both General Motors and Chrysler. They are obligated to do his bidding. The federal government imposed after-the-fact restrictions on financial institutions that accepted TARP funds. When banks that regained their footing tried to repay their loan and regain their freedom, Obama refused to take the money. He didn’t want to yield control.

But the real reason that Obama might want to bail out newspapers probably came to light late last month. Obama Administration officials were part of a conference call with the National Endowment for the Arts. Artist organizations were encouraged to involve themselves in promoting Obama’s political agenda. In particular artists were encouraged to deploy their artistic skills to promote “a new foundation for growth, focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda – health care, energy and environment, safety and security, education, community renewal.”

In the old Soviet Union, the role of art was to glorify the state. I’m beginning to wonder if we really did win the Cold War.

And once again, this story only came to light through the efforts of the new media. The legacy media has been very slow to report on this. The New York Times first (and as of this writing, only) reporting was to reprint an Associated Press story about Obama’s new rules against awarding NEA grants based upon politics. That AP story emerged a full month after the story broke on the Internet.

The federal government is the single largest patron of the arts in this country. Even if the art community were not already sympathetic to leftwing politics, it certainly would have recognized who buttered its bread. Don’t you think that believers in limitless government power would like to hold similar power over newspapers?

It’s not as though most newspapers are not already eager to serve as Obama’s water bearers. They are. And there is no more glaring an example than the New York Times’ servility. But holding a financial leash is a sure way to make sure that they do not stray from Obama’s shining path.

There are probably numerous causes for the newspaper industry’s difficulties, but certainly one problem has to be the legacy media’s painful reluctance to report news that embarrasses this administration or his party.

The New York Times lost nearly $75 million in the first three months of this year. The Washington Post loses more than a dollar for every paper that it delivers. Without a bailout, they might be tempted to revive themselves by doing real reporting.