After reading this article, I immediately tried to pick up on one side of the argument... I sort of had a quick mental struggle and bounced back and forth between a few pros and cons. At first an alarm went off when I thought about donations from special interest groups, which would undoubtedly lead to some bias. My little liberal mind fast-tracked to a vision of a New York Times run on big oil money. That doesn't seem like the source of income I'd be in favor of, but I can't imagine any sort of fair regulation.
But then I realized that the influence such potential endowment-givers wouldn't be that much greater than your average scheming advertising agency, would it? What do I know about spheres of influence in the land of cash-money, I'm only making assumptions here.
Also, I read a couple responses below, and I got a completely different vibe from the article than some people. I'm not thinking about endowments as comparable to recent bailouts in the slightest. Newspapers aren't asking the government to erase their debts, they're asking for private groups to help fund their publications. Right? Isn't there a difference? Am I totally wrong? The media seems to me to be at the wrong end of the stick, which companies relying on bailouts seem to be closer to the cause of.
Blah blah blah, who knows the answer to this big moral questions, blah blah blah, not me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment