• In light of today’s struggling newspaper business models, which is a worse fate : A nation without any newspapers, or a nation of newspapers reliant on government funds to stay operational?
The question that was posed can be interpreted as a little tricky to some people. If you let the newspapers fail and go out of business, there will be a ton of people out of a job and an American staple will be removed from our culture. On the other hand there will be a perception that the government is running the press and what the media reports on. Some people will think there will be a censorship by the government. I think this is an easy answer. The government has resurrected the auto industry; General Motors to be specific. It kept a ton of people employed and it rejuvenated their business. GM has been pretty successful since the government stepped in. Even if the United States Government had full censorship, which I don’t believe would happen, it would better to have newspaper than to not have a newspaper. It would be better for people to have jobs than to not have jobs. Easy decision for me.
• What changes might occur to broadcast and online news operations if newspapers continue to go out of business?
First off, there would be a higher amount of competition to get the reporting jobs in online and broadcast news since all of the reporters that worked for the newspapers. There would also be fewer news outlets, so the broadcast news and online news will be sharing more and more sources. There would also be more success for television broadcasts and online news since a third of the competition had been eliminated. All the advertisers will go to them, and they can increase the asking price since they know they don’t have anywhere else to go.