

The FTC Confuses Newspapers With Journalism - cwan
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/07/the-ftc-confuses-newspapers-with-journalism-as-it-seeks-new-media-tax/

======
ZachPruckowski
The core problem is the "Eat Your Broccoli" Problem. In-depth and globe-
spanning reporting is essential for a running democracy, but everyone would
rather spend their money on American Idol than American Morning and would
rather read about celebrity domestic scandals than domestic policy. The cross-
subsidy system worked well in the 20th century to avert this, but that's out
the window. We need to either create a new cross-subsidy system or we need to
find a way to charge people for news directly.

And let's not forget Craigslist if we're casting blame on why the Internet
killed newspapers. The classifieds section got decimated by it.

"Here, they confuse journalism with newspapers, and an informed public with
newspaper jobs. In fact, Americans have never been better informed or more
engaged."

This is not new or unique to newspapers. It's a fallacy common to pretty much
every sinking industry.

"but the FTC is an 'independent' agency run by people appointed by the Obama
Administration, which has been antagonistic to an Internet it cannot control"

When has the Obama Administration been antagonistic towards the Internet?
Aside from ISP-promoted wackaloon conspiracy theories about how Net Neutrality
is actually censorship, where is the argument (much less evidence) for this? I
mean, I realize this is The Heritage Foundation, but come on. Way to trash a
great article with a nonsensical partisan jab.

~~~
gyardley
Well, the same author has a recent column in National Review Online about
this:

[http://article.nationalreview.com/434022/obama-vs-the-
ipad/m...](http://article.nationalreview.com/434022/obama-vs-the-ipad/mike-
gonzalez)

The article includes two quotes from President Obama. The first from a
commencement address:

 _You’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all
kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t
always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads, and Xboxes
and PlayStations . . . information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form
of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of
emancipation._

The second is from an interview with CBS News:

 _There’s one last point I gotta make, Bob, and that is that I do think part
of what’s different today is the 24-hour news cycle and cable TV and blogs and
all this. They focus on the most extreme elements in both sides. They can’t
get enough of conflict. It’s catnip to the media right now. And so the easiest
way to get 15 minutes of fame is to be rude to somebody. In that environment,
I think it makes it more difficult to solve the problems the American people
sent us here to solve._

Constructing an 'antagonistic to the Internet' argument on the basis of those
two quotes seems somewhat, well, challenging - but those seem to be the
primary sources.

~~~
ams6110
I'm no fan of the Obama administration but if you watch any of the "analysis"
shows on cable news channels it is clear that "stirring the hornet's nest" is
a big part of how they operate. And I don't think it's a bad message to say
"just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true" but I would say the
same goes for any other media these days, including White House press
releases.

~~~
gyardley
Right, which is why I said constructing an argument based on such sources
would be challenging.

A commenter asked what the writer's justification was for calling the Obama
administration antagonistic to the internet, and I found it for him. Doesn't
mean that the writer's justification has merit.

------
eli
The FTC "has not endorsed the idea of making any policy recommendation or
recommended any of the proposals in the discussion draft"

[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-
eye/2010/06/is_the_...](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-
eye/2010/06/is_the_government_pushing_a_dr.html)

~~~
dminor
The document in question is merely a set of discussion topics. "We anticipate
that different participants in the roundtables at which this document will be
discussed will criticize some or all proposals, improve others, and add ideas
of their own. The purpose of this document is precisely to encourage such
additional analyses and brainstorming."

It's for an upcoming roundtable at the National Press Club. The actual
document is here: [http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-
staff-d...](http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-
discussion.pdf)

The public can also contribute ideas here:
<http://public.commentworks.com/ftc/newsmediaworkshop/>

