Difference between revisions of "Yale-payments-subsidy"
(New page: ==="Journalism and the New Media Media Ecology: Who Will Pay the Messengers?"=== =SATURDAY 2 P.M. -- Direct and Indirect Government Subsidies= <big>What follows is an honest attempt to doc...) |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
<hr></b> | <hr></b> | ||
<big>This session, "Direct and Indirect Subsidies," includes Edwin Baker of the Univ. of Pennsylvania Law School; Bruce Ackerman, of Yale Law School; Steven Nevas of the Knight Law & Media Program at Yale; and Susan DeSanti, of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.</big> | <big>This session, "Direct and Indirect Subsidies," includes Edwin Baker of the Univ. of Pennsylvania Law School; Bruce Ackerman, of Yale Law School; Steven Nevas of the Knight Law & Media Program at Yale; and Susan DeSanti, of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.</big> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Edwin Baker opens. He provides an overview | ||
| + | |||
| + | Give papers a tax credit for half the salary of their journalists. I have to go into defining journalists and editors and whatnot. I'll put that issue aside for now. But give the newspapers a tax credit for half the salaries of journalists. The newspaper knows it has a better product with journalists. ... if the cost of the journalists goes down by half, you'll have more journalists. It's directly related to the problem. The justification is the greater benefits that journalists current produce." | ||
| + | |||
| + | Cost: There are 50,000 journalists employed by newspapres and the aveage salary is $50,000, if you subsidize that at $25,000, the subsidy is about $1.25 billion. It is small, in constant dollars, compared to the postal subsidy in the colonial area. And it targets the area where the problem exists. "Our problem today is in the production of quality news. This subsidy directly attracts that problem." | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is this a viable proposal in an industry that is adamanently opposed to subsidies? "It doesn't involve the goverment in any judgement about content. It should be a way to change the media landscape for the better." | ||
| + | " | ||
Revision as of 18:59, 14 November 2009
"Journalism and the New Media Media Ecology: Who Will Pay the Messengers?"
SATURDAY 2 P.M. -- Direct and Indirect Government Subsidies
What follows is an honest attempt to document a two-day conference at Yale Law School, "Journalism and the New Media Ecology: Who Will Pay the Messenger?" The reporter is Bill Densmore of the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute at the Missouri School of Journalism. As with a similar in-the-moment report from a gathering at Harvard University two weeks ago, I make no warranty about the accuracy of direct quotes -- captured on the fly -- but make a promise to have supplied appropriate context as best as possible. The sessions are being videotaped. Consult that source for the final history of this event.
Related links:
- FOLLOW TWITTER STREAM #kmedia
- Watch LIVE VIDEO STREAM (right side of page)
- What will support news?
- The collaborative idea
- MORNING SESSION: The overview
- AFTERNOON SESSION: The public option
- AFTERNOON SESSION: What is to be done locally?
- 5 p.m. SESSION: New business models
This session, "Direct and Indirect Subsidies," includes Edwin Baker of the Univ. of Pennsylvania Law School; Bruce Ackerman, of Yale Law School; Steven Nevas of the Knight Law & Media Program at Yale; and Susan DeSanti, of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.
Edwin Baker opens. He provides an overview
Give papers a tax credit for half the salary of their journalists. I have to go into defining journalists and editors and whatnot. I'll put that issue aside for now. But give the newspapers a tax credit for half the salaries of journalists. The newspaper knows it has a better product with journalists. ... if the cost of the journalists goes down by half, you'll have more journalists. It's directly related to the problem. The justification is the greater benefits that journalists current produce."
Cost: There are 50,000 journalists employed by newspapres and the aveage salary is $50,000, if you subsidize that at $25,000, the subsidy is about $1.25 billion. It is small, in constant dollars, compared to the postal subsidy in the colonial area. And it targets the area where the problem exists. "Our problem today is in the production of quality news. This subsidy directly attracts that problem."
Is this a viable proposal in an industry that is adamanently opposed to subsidies? "It doesn't involve the goverment in any judgement about content. It should be a way to change the media landscape for the better." "
