Tories must oppose using taxpayers' money to bailout newspapers

Jeremy Hunt MP noted on Thursday that the newspaper industry is in trouble and others have worried that, without a vigorous press, democracy will lose its watchdogs.  But should newspapers join the growing list of industries receiving special government subsidy?

A report in Friday's Scotsman suggested that Scottish Conservatives think the answer to that question is 'yes'.

"Tory media spokesman Ted Brocklebank [MSP] has called on the Scottish Government to re- consider its decision to switch its advertising to the internet in a bid to tackle the financial problems in the newspaper industry."

That's a bad call; bad for taxpayers and also potentially bad for democracy.  We need a free press but we need that free press to be fiercely independent of government.  If the press starts to rely on state-subsidised favours for its survival we are on a very slippery slope.

Tim Montgomerie

Comments

[Denis Cooper]

Correct.

I've heard stories about one local paper, which was so heavily influenced by its need to retain council advertising that unfavourable stories were either dropped altogether, or rewritten as dictated by the local Labour party. Allegedly they even had somebody planted on the editorial staff.

It's one thing to introduce measures which would help ALL newspapers, for example some kind of tax exemption, but it's another thing to set up a system whereby politicians could decide which newspapers would be helped, and which would not.

[Tanuki]

The entire media landscape is changing; just as we've seen ITV lose its post-WWII pre-eminence as the UK's favourite broadcaster, people are moving away from newspapers too - specially the local/regional ones which contain buggerall of interest to anyone under about fifty.

The whole idea of propping up such outdated things with taxpayers' monies is completely and utterly wrong.

Evolve or die.

[YMT]

Bailout? Someone give the Scottish Conservatives a laptop, sit them down and explain calmly why they are wrong. The 20th century content delivery systems including newspapers are in a downward spiral as their medium shrivels and dies as the new digitally distributed on-line systems out compete them in every way! the only path of action if they want to hazard a folly on keeping the papers alive is to nationalise them and give them state money so that in decades time then can be looked on a throwbacks to a bygone era.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Decisions on government media spend should be decided by the one criterion of reaching the greatest part of a target audience for the least money. If the press offers that, great, if it doesn't ,tough. Government should not be duty bound to keep any business open for sentimental reasons.

[William Blake's Ghost]

Once any form of news media become dependent on Government funding, the risk that they turn into or are perceived as little more than a propagandist mouthpiece grows exponentially.

Tough as it is no news media should be Government funded.

[Cleethorpes Rock]

"Tories must oppose using taxpayers' money to bailout newspapers..."

...and banks, and car companies, and mortgage holders...

I said back when we bailed out Northern Rock that this would be the thin end of the wedge. First Northern Rock, then I said it would be other banks next. It was. Then other businesses, like car companies. That's happening. Now newspapers!

I'm disgusted that someone calling themselves a Tory can be calling for government-subsidised newspapers.

[chris southern]

The deadwood press is already full of goverment propaganda without the goverment (lets face it, the people pay for it but the goverment would control it) actualy controlling exactly what the articles can and can't say (and it would happen.)

If their business model isn't good enough to surviove then let it fail, big goverment has already screwed up the markets due to it's interferance (and the EU is the biggest market destroyer we know!)

ding ding, last orders for the dead wood press, please.

[Phyllis Crash]

Democracy has already been corrupted by the massive size of the state and the huge number of interest groups that feed from its largesse.

[Umbrella man]

The Scottish Tories have lost nearly all free market sense.

[Denis Cooper]

Tanuki

"The entire media landscape is changing; just as we've seen ITV lose its post-WWII pre-eminence as the UK's favourite broadcaster, people are moving away from newspapers too - specially the local/regional ones which contain buggerall of interest to anyone under about fifty."

I'm no longer under fifty, a fate which eventually befalls us all.

Have you got a problem with that?

Can I take it that you won't be wanting my vote, then?

Anyway, being over fifty I'm old enough to remember it being said that TV was going to kill off newspapers.

That didn't happen.

And in fact there are daily regional papers with circulations in their areas which are greater than those of all the national newspapers put together.

"The whole idea of propping up such outdated things with taxpayers' monies is completely and utterly wrong."

On the other hand, the idea of taxing or regulating such things out of existence would also be wrong.

YMT

"The 20th century content delivery systems including newspapers are in a downward spiral as their medium shrivels and dies as the new digitally distributed on-line systems out compete them in every way! the only path of action if they want to hazard a folly on keeping the papers alive is to nationalise them and give them state money so that in decades time then can be looked on a throwbacks to a bygone era."

Yeah, like the 20th century mail delivery system is also in a downward spiral as people move over to email - except that this hasn't actually been true until this last year or so, before which Royal Mail was handling more letters each year, but under competitive conditions deliberately ordained to make sure that it would look like a throwback to a bygone era, and should be sold off.

[Vincent Wall]

Brocklebank and Goldie are gunning for votes among hacks. This is crude politics.

[John Wilkin]

Now wouldn't it be sad to see The Independent disappear :)

[John B. Pope]

Newspapers are ecologically incorrect,proprietorialy biassed, cost far more to produce and distribute than most are worth.

Occasionally someone brings a spurious newspaper into our house, invariably one has read it on line the previous day, and possibly left comment on it too.There lies the future for the Press.

The only properly priced, local Newspaper I know of is The New Milton and Lymington Times from The New Forest. That seems to be solvent, if they can produce a good paper so should others be able so to do without subsidy.

[jon dee]

Regional paid-for papers are slowly dying due to change in readership habits and advertising alternatives, primarily brought on by the internet.No amount of government subsidy will reverse this trend.

Local weeklies usually spawned by the former are high risk and have always been so. Editorial justification for bail-outs is trite.

Having said this, I can see Labour being tempted for selfish reasons but that apart there is no reason for taxpayers money to go in this direction.

[Victor, NW Kent]

The Nationalist government in South Africa - the apartheid one - financed one English newspaper completely and at least two Afrikaans papers heavily.

Since all TV for many years was also government controlled that meant effective control of the press.

Government participation in, or ownership of newspapers is a bad thing. The dead tree press is dying anyway. The Guardian, for example, will lose its monopoly on government jobs advertising in 2010. Would a Tory administration be called upon to keep it alive by subsidy?

[David]

Sounds like a typical politician to me.

I think this Tory MSP probably knows that bailing out newspapers is 'wrong' but thinks that the paper might be favourable to her for her efforts if she succeeds so she just doesn't care. That is my take on it.

That's the thing about ALL politicians, they just DON'T CARE if something is 'right' or not; they just seem to see politics as 'there business'. Take Westminister being smug about ignoring the ACMD a few weeks back, ignoring science on an issue that important is clearly very damaging to the country but they figure that's where the votes were and that's all they care about.

These guys would introduce Sharia law in certain Northern cities if they believed that would win them the election. Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, they'd all do it, they're all as a bad as each other.

Why do you think the Tories waited to see which way the wind was blowing on that Dutch MP being turned back at Heathrow? Because they weren't interested in whether it was right or not, they wanted to know how to play it for votes - right and wrong and political principles isn't part of the equation.

Sometimes I think you guys are just stupid for not being able to see what is so obvious to most of us.

[TomTom]

Newspapers have become magazines full of opinion pieces but little fresh news, more a dietof propaganda and spin.

There are simply too many London-based newspapers huddled around London-centric broasdcasters peddling the same pitch.

The Guardian should sell itself for the customary pound to the BBC and the Telegraph could merge with The Mail; Times could be fully integrated into Sky TV and the rest could fold.

Samizdat is the future as we escape the crushing uniformity of MSM

[TomTom]

Newspapers have become magazines full of opinion pieces but little fresh news, more a dietof propaganda and spin.

There are simply too many London-based newspapers huddled around London-centric broadcasters peddling the same pitch.

The Guardian should sell itself for the customary pound to the BBC and the Telegraph could merge with The Mail; Times could be fully integrated into Sky TV and the rest could fold.

Samizdat is the future as we escape the crushing uniformity of MSM

[YMT]

@Denis Cooper

I don't know where you get your information from Mr Cooper but since your basic facts are wrong I feel a counter argument would be a waste of my time unless you read up a bit more.

But on the issue of the segment of the population of a certain age, well I would say that the current adoption of the on-line distribution network isn't ageist as frankly many people >50 have adapted well to the internet, the people who struggle tend to be those who resist change on principle rather than because its "complicated", I'm afraid it comes down to either one adapts of dies.

In regards to legacy consumers, well businesses know they will be fully phased out over the coming decades as these people, essentially, die off so continued investement in the delivery systems that can't comepte is grinding to a halt.

A, poor, analogy would be trains, people loved the steam trains, and there was a fierce attempt to protect them from the onslaught of diesel and electric, but they were outdated and could not compete with the new tech and thus had to be killed off as the operator invested in exploiting the technological advancement. Of course we look back fondly on them, there are still a few of them kept running here and there looked after lovingly for their sentimental value. This will probably be the fate of many of the papers, apart from a few that fill their unique market or are kept going as a curiosity, TV too, the iPlayer was a first step, but I fear the UK may stagnate in this area as the network isn't properly liberated and investment in upgrading the network is pitiful and short sighted by BT.

[David]

Someone wrote a comment about that on the Scotsman website, they wrote -

"And I'm sure the newspaper proprietors will of course thank the Tories in their usual manner for this attempted "bung". Every time a Tory opens its mouth it is to feather its own nest. What a pathetic bunch of greed sodden losers."

Spot on 8)

[Denis Cooper]

Well, YMT, you might at least say which of my basic facts is wrong, so that I know what I should be reading up.

[Ross Warren]

I am happy to see the press die. Most papers do not have the moral grit to deserve our support. They undermine our democracy at every opportunity and they play loose and sod you, with the law. I say let them go. Any state funding would come with restrictions and gags...now I think that would be the right way to run the nation, we don't need the parasites setting the agenda.
If fleet streety cannot survive then so be it, a great goodness will be the result of its demise. I am as happy to hear of the death of the "free" press, as I could be (gleefull). We will need new thinking and new industries to overcome the deflation which is shortly to befall us.
The move to the uranium standard would suit many difficult issues. It would give western nations a much needed edge, it has calorific value and we are unlikely to throw it away. It sounds good! Of course some will continue to hanker after gold but a much needed balance would be restored to our money. It sounds more 21st century to talk of moving to the Uranium standard. We get more bucks for our boom if we use it as a measure of our money. The whole notion of promisary notes is wrong, hot air cannot under pin a great economy. We really do need to restore confidence what inspires the greatest confidence? Nuclear materials are valuble
and best kept organised and safe. The more weapons turned into counters the better I say. There is something to be said for dareing to think outside of the box. We need bold and even brash moves, that rattle the cages of the powerful.

[Steevo]

"Samizdat is the future as we escape the crushing uniformity of MSM."

That's assuming folks want to think ;)

[Richard Calhoun]

No taxpayers money should go to the newspaper industry, or any other media business.
The market will evolve, never before have we had so many alternatives

[MG]

I just can't believe I read that someone was saying we should bail-out the media. Completely mad, where is this going to end, after we are all totally bankrupt?

[pp]

Until we have a government who will leave the public with enough money in their pockets to maintain a market economy, everything else is just posturing.

Ultimately, no tax-payer money should go to the media (BBC included).

But while there is such a massive imbalance in the abuse of the taxpayer, it has to be corrected carefully.

If you want to rescue a man with his head in a noose, you really must cut the rope *before* making him step off the stool - sequence is everything.

Pro-government propaganda (including EU propaganda) is a far greater affront to the taxpayer than newspapers.

I would love to have a free press - but while the government steals every spare penny (and then some) to spend on their own propaganda (and other unwanted rubbish), I have nothing left to support a 'free press'.

[Walton]

The main argument one can always make, thanks to the government, is that of tit-for-tat. If they can bail out the banks whom everyone loathes then surely they must be able to bale out the historical companies like Whittard's or the virtually defunct car industry? Well why not even the news paper they have a grand history (well most of them) why shall not they also have some cash?

No this is the Labour view on most things "lets screw Britain over in every way possible, and let the tories pick up the pieces" a party which knows that it will loose the next election is like a starved wolf - exceedingly dangerous.

[Opinicus]

I have given up on almost anything of value from a Cameron government to get my disappointment over with as early as possible.

The one bone I still expect to be thrown (the Conservative equivalent of banning hunting) is the removal of government advertising from the Guardian to the Internet to bankrupt the Guardian.

[Dominic Coupe]

Say there was a really bad show on TV that nobody watched any more. Would the Tories sponsor it just to keep it going?

Even for a laugh?

Same thing.

Turn the argument on its head and it only begs the question "Why do we state-fund museums?"

[Emily Sedgefield]

I'd like to know why it is never evident that the Tories oppose all these latest database schemes?

Is it that you intend to carry on this Big Brother agenda?

The Conservatives could become a POPULAR party if it would just speak up against all these stupid labour schemes and stealth taxes on alcohol etc...

As always, you remain silent and no one is quite sure what your policies are. I'm giving you until June. I want to hear you speaking up for the electorate or I am voting BNP!

[pp]

Emily, I agree with you on the lack of condemntation from the shadow front bench for the ever increasing reach of big brother (or is it just not reported?).

The issues raised in Nick Robinsons blog about the alcohol tax is also the type of thing that needs a clear cameron response - particularly as IDS is so at odds with the natual conservative view.

In my view taxation has no place in social engineering (aka - beating up the poor again) - distribution of the tax burden should always be the least unfair method of raising the money that the government needs.

Make the minimum price for a unit of alcohol (say) 1% of the purchasers weekly pay and see how the rich react... And this ignores the fact that doctors now seem to want control of the tax system -- what next, alistair darling performing open heart surgery?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2009/03/drink_now_pay_l.html

[Adam]

We need to keep regional newspapers going for when we have Regional Assemblies. Oh, didn't you get the EU memo?

[Pat]

Bailouts driven by entitlement and welfare mentality has never worked for America. Well considered subsidies have worked but never before in the history of mankind can it be discerned that bailouts are any different than takeovers of government, albeit without violence.