If Lenin said that capitalists “will sell us the rope we use to hang them,” newspapers are saying that conservatives will fund the ink they use to smear them.
Bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress have now signed on for a proposed media bailout. This isn’t a bailout for smaller newspapers and television stations. Those businesses were already eligible for the Payroll Protection Program, and many of them took advantage of it — in a big way.
The Seattle Times took $9.9 million tax dollars, and the Tampa Bay Times bagged $8.5 million. Two of the most hard-left newspapers in America didn’t even hesitate before grabbing their Trump Bucks.
This new bailout would be for larger media conglomerates that own a multitude of newspapers and TV stations, such as Gannett and the McClatchy Company. To its credit, Gannett, which owns 261 daily papers, has publicly opposed the bailout.
McClatchy owns dozens of papers, including the Miami Herald. Even if you don’t live in South Florida, that publication might sound familiar: It’s the newspaper with a longtime editor who recently wished for the deaths of Florida Republicans on Twitter.
Rather than publishing an apology in its pages or on its website, the only response from the Herald came as a midnight Twitter mea culpa from its editor. Then the paper resumed publishing its typical stories attacking Republicans — albeit without wishing for their deaths. After all, dead taxpayers can’t bail out your failed media company. And there’s no denying McClatchy is a failure. It filed for bankruptcy in February.
However, McClatchy’s fiscal situation is far less perilous than that of our federal government. The national debt is now more than $25 trillion dollars, with the second-largest debt holder being China.
With that in mind, why should we borrow money from China to fund a failing media company that filed for bankruptcy before the pandemic? Is this truly an expense we should force our grandchildren to incur?
For years, conservatives bemoaned how far left their local newspapers shifted. Little by little, the editorial boards of nearly every local newspaper were taken over by progressives. Then the editorializing started spreading to each article. In response to their complaints, conservatives were always told, “It’s a private company, they can do what they want!”
But now we’ve learned that alienating a large portion of your marketplace isn’t a winning business strategy. Why, then, should customers be forced to pay for a product they’ve already rejected?
Of course, the newspapers claim their bias isn’t the problem. They blame the internet. Countless business models have been upended by the internet; should we bail out each of them? Should we have bailed out stone tablet makers after the invention of the printing press?
And let’s not forget — once internet access proliferated, these media conglomerates had all the advantages one could hope for within their industry. They had name ID, a large subscription base, credibility, and deep pockets. But as soon as consumers had other choices, these newspapers struggled.
By allowing some of them to fail, we would create an opportunity for new and smaller newspapers to take their place. And perhaps these news outlets will do a better job of meeting the needs of consumers.
It’s often said that the government shouldn’t pick winners and losers in the marketplace. By bailing out failing newspapers, the feds would be making them the winners and making us taxpayers into losers.
Adam Guillette is the president of Accuracy in Media.
