Free Press (owned by the government)

One topic that seems to be discussed more and more is a government bailout of newspapers. It seems that newspaper companies are really interested in government money since they are achieving less and less subscribers. Instead of being competitive with other news sources, they want to keep doing things they same way that they always have, but still get paid for doing it.

The Obama administration is a supporter of this since it is one more way that they can funnel money to organizations that support their agenda and the Democrat party. It would serve the double purpose of nationalizing yet another industry (automobile, banking, insurance?). The Seattle Times had the audacity to run an editorial saying that the only way to achieve a free press was to have it supported by the government. Wow! They really did say that.

I supposed they haven't noticed what happened at GM. The Obama administration appointed a couple of directors. One of these directors became the interim CEO when the newest CEO resigned. (This new CEO replaced the CEO that was forced to resign, by ... the Obama administration.) Then, the interim CEO, after a lengthy search, decided that he himself would be the best person to be the full-time CEO. Wow! How insightful! So one of the directors appointed by Obama (not through any shareholder vote) became CEO by his own decision (again, not a shareholder vote).

I suppose this type of intervention by the government isn't expected by the newspaper industry. I can see why. They pretty much do what the government asks them to do. Oh wait, not for a Republican administration. Do you think the Seattle Times won't cry fowl if the next administration were to become involved in the newspapers once they have been bought by the government.