MSM Newspapers Bailed by Washington?

Just freaking great! We're going to make the mainstream media newspapers into public-benefit, quasi-governmental house organs. Jeez, you'd think the MSM weren't already kissing the asset-guarantors in Washington.

Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax exempt, and contributions to support news coverage or operations could be tax deductible.

It appears that newspapers would be restricted in expressing political opinions while providing Washington with the means to censor anything deemed to be a political endorsement.

Reporter: "Hey, Chief! Here's that puff piece on Senator Wagatongue."

Editor: "Okay, take it to the political officer for approval. It should be good since Wagatongue is one of us."

Since the MSM already leans politically-left and Washington is politically-left, it's logical to expect that the only complaints about newspaper "endorsements" would arise when they are conservative. Endorsements is in quotes because it realistically could mean just about anything.

However, the real danger of such legislation is it assumes that Washington overseers will act in an unbiased and objective manner when evaluating political endorsements in newspapers. The assumption is astonishing since there exists scant evidence that Washington overseers have ever acted unbiased and objective.

To illustrate, would the powers in Washington view a recommendation to see Al Gore's global-warming dangers film the same way as a recommendation to see Geert Wilder's film on the dangers of radical Islam? I suggest not. Al Gore's film would be acceptable and Geert Wilder's film would be considered a prohibited political endorsement.

I contend that the proposed legislation is a very bad idea.

Tip: CNestor

Companion post at The Jawa Report.