This article caught my attention because it was different than most I have recently read. Yes, we all know that newspapers are dying and that they are having a hard time coming up with enough cash. But how often do we hear of people trying out solutions?
Crosscut.com, an online publication started in Seattle that describes itself as "non-partisan" and "in the public interest," has decided to go non-profit.
Battling the difficult economy, the dropping ad prices, and the high start-up costs was tough for Crosscut.
When advertising sales weren't making ends meet, David Brewster, one of the publishers, said he was running out of both money and patience. So, he turned to a solution that has the potential to save Crosscut.
According to the article, Crosscut will now go from a profit-based business to a non-profit organization:
"As a nonprofit, Crosscut would continue to accept advertising but also would solicit tax-deductible donations from individuals and grants from organizations to help finance its journalism."
One of the most prominent examples of a non-profit news organization is National Public Radio.
So now comes the question - will the public support journalism?
I think that comes down to the press-citizen relationship. People need to think of the press as an asset - something highly valuable that is of immense public service. If they take the press for granted, or if they blame it for current problems, then that relationship will be destroyed.
I think that a non-profit model could possibly work - but I highly doubt that most news organizations are in the right position with their readers right now. If they take steps toward showing themselves as reliable, un-biased, quality journalists, then maybe this non-profit thing could save the press after all.
What do you all think? Will it work? Will people donate to their journalism organizations, or do news professionals need to win their trust first?
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Regulations on media outlets
I ran across this article about FOX News and the legal case it is currently involved with. It caught my attention because it involves a controversy that has been going on for a while.
(You can read more about the case here.)
Basically, the issue of profanity in the media has gone to the Supreme Court. The issue was discussed by justices, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), and an attorney for FOX. They debated the use of expletives on television, citing examples of Cher, Nicole Richie, and Bono uttering curse words live.
The justices cracked jokes and employed euphemisms to refer to the words involved throughout the case.
The current policy is that the FCC can punish a network for repeated expletives. However, they are currently trying to determine if this can apply to "one-time," single slip-ups.
The article explains the court hearing's background:
"The Federal Communications Commission reversed long-standing policy targeting only repeated expletives and said any one-time use of vulgarities associated with sexual or excretory functions could be sanctioned.
The FCC then declared indecent a 2002 outburst by Cher on a Fox awards show and several other incidents. Fox Television Stations sued, saying the new limit on "fleeting expletives" was arbitrary and violated the First Amendment. "
As I read this article, several opposing thoughts came to mind. On one hand, there are certain "widely accepted" standards which are part of society to protect children. Most public news channels are considered "safe," and families can leave the news on and expect professionalism and decency. I think it should stay that way.
On the other hand, the logistics seem a little strange. How can the FCC punish something that is said live? Yes, more safegaurds should be put in place. Networks should brief their guest stars on what is acceptable and what is not.
Basically, if it's pre-recorded, there should be definite boundaries on what can and can't be said on public or widely-accessed television. In general, most sketchier shows are played after 10pm to avoid children viewing them. This practice is good, and should be continued. However, when it comes to live television, I think it will be a pointless effort to actually enforce legislation that blames a network for a "one-time" curse word slip.
What do you all think? We all support the fact that everyone has a First Amendment right to say whatever they want. But should the FCC play the "watchdog" role in regulating offensive content?
(You can read more about the case here.)
Basically, the issue of profanity in the media has gone to the Supreme Court. The issue was discussed by justices, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), and an attorney for FOX. They debated the use of expletives on television, citing examples of Cher, Nicole Richie, and Bono uttering curse words live.
The justices cracked jokes and employed euphemisms to refer to the words involved throughout the case.
The current policy is that the FCC can punish a network for repeated expletives. However, they are currently trying to determine if this can apply to "one-time," single slip-ups.
The article explains the court hearing's background:
"The Federal Communications Commission reversed long-standing policy targeting only repeated expletives and said any one-time use of vulgarities associated with sexual or excretory functions could be sanctioned.
The FCC then declared indecent a 2002 outburst by Cher on a Fox awards show and several other incidents. Fox Television Stations sued, saying the new limit on "fleeting expletives" was arbitrary and violated the First Amendment. "
As I read this article, several opposing thoughts came to mind. On one hand, there are certain "widely accepted" standards which are part of society to protect children. Most public news channels are considered "safe," and families can leave the news on and expect professionalism and decency. I think it should stay that way.
On the other hand, the logistics seem a little strange. How can the FCC punish something that is said live? Yes, more safegaurds should be put in place. Networks should brief their guest stars on what is acceptable and what is not.
Basically, if it's pre-recorded, there should be definite boundaries on what can and can't be said on public or widely-accessed television. In general, most sketchier shows are played after 10pm to avoid children viewing them. This practice is good, and should be continued. However, when it comes to live television, I think it will be a pointless effort to actually enforce legislation that blames a network for a "one-time" curse word slip.
What do you all think? We all support the fact that everyone has a First Amendment right to say whatever they want. But should the FCC play the "watchdog" role in regulating offensive content?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
