There's a difference between allowing newspapers to avoid taxes and nationalizing newspapers. To wit, the former is a foolish use of government money, but is in no way comparable to "nationalizing newspaper." Otherwise, we'd have to say that religion, art, and cancer research are "nationalized" as well.

Still and all...you'd think there would be higher priorities than throwing tax breaks at a media that at best will have to evolve and transform itself in order to survive.

my question I guess is:

What does the paper get in advertising dollars online per viewer or (hit)? I paid $10 a month for the paper when I got it until recently. Certainly they'd only get a fraction of that per hit, but I would think that the readership online for a newspaper would increase dramatically if a paper scaled back or discontinued its printing.

The national news outlets - CNN, ESPN and others certainly seem to do well online.

Here with the Atlanta paper (AJC) online (and I'm sure its true elsewhere) we can send a comment directly to the columnist in a blog format immediately after his/her column appears. That's a great feature you can't get if you only read the printed word.......there's gotta be good money in that I would think.

Surely, Chestertonian, you realize the Supremes have declared that not taxing equals subsidy equals responsibility (for public good, of course) to control?

Back during the Presidential campaign, someone editorialized to the effect that newspapers were coming out swinging for Obama, because the Dems were more likely to throw them a life preserver than the Republicans were. Does anyone remember who that was?

Honestly, it does look like the days of print newspapers are numbered. I will miss them. People who can't afford a fast internet connection can afford a daily print newspaper. It's alot easier to just open up a paper and start reading than it is to wait for my laptop to finish its $*%&#$ boot cycle. A newspaper that everybody reads provides one little bit of social cohesion that we won't have with all the teenieboppers and Mil Gens going off to their own little Twitter sites instead. A computer screen is hard on the eyes after a while. And, there's just something about paper and print, somehow.

But, I grieved mildly over the passing of vinyl sound recordings too, and the world didn't end. And, even with CDs ascendant, there's something about browsing in a record store that I just like better than downloading music online. And that is going to pass too. But the world won't end there eitehr.

On the balance, I believe the passing of print newspapers will be a bad thing. But, on the balance, I think the government artificially pumping life into them at taxpayer expense will be a horrible thing. This is one thing the government just doesn't need to worry its matronly head over.

I'm torn. I think newspapers are important and necessary. News publications can not and will not operate properly if beholden to the government. I can't state that strongly enough. Then again, I don't want a "news lite" publication that is popular and commercially strong. We already have People Magazine.

The newspapers need to realize that they can't and shouldn't compete with TV or the Internet. They should specialize in local news and in depth analysis. Those are things we can't get elsewhere by any means.

Chestertonian:

There's a difference between allowing newspapers to avoid taxes and nationalizing newspapers. To wit, the former is a foolish use of government money, but is in no way comparable to "nationalizing newspaper." Otherwise, we'd have to say that religion, art, and cancer research are "nationalized" as well.

I know :-) - my question was about the future. Six months ago I would have scoffed at that question. That was before our President became defacto CEO of two of the three major car companies . . .

One of my points here (and the reason I quoted the tenth amendment): Since when was this Congress's job? Likewise them taking care of the Steroid problem or the BCS in sports.

WHEN DID THEY DECIDE THAT WAS THEIR JOB????

I'm ready to start standing athwart history yelling STOP. Who's with me?

Side note: The days of free newspaper content online are numbered (IMO). More and more papers are moving toward charging a blanket monthly subscription fee or using an iTunes model for individual stories.

I think they are approaching the BCS problem from an anti-trust standpoint. Hundreds of millions of dollars are generated in revenue from these games and there are a good number of schools who are locked out from a reasonable chance of seeing any of that money.

If I remember, the primary Senate effort is being pushed by Hatch, from Utah, a state whose flagship public university has been shut out a couple of times in the past few years. Since it is a state school, the taxpayers are the ones who are out of luck.

Since this is a inter-state issue, I think that the federal government is justified in acting.


As far as papers go - why are we doubting that the government won't intervene here as they've done with GM? The White House has shown that there is, largely, no place they won't stick their noses. I would argue that if the White House does for the globe, or some other media conglomerate what they've done with GM, that would be a nationalization of media.

The Congress has gotten perpetually worse since Gingrich left - I'm not a huge fan of his, but his leadership is missed . . .

Since this is a inter-state issue, I think that the federal government is justified in acting.

Man, do we disagree on this.

Congress can start jacking around with the BCS once they've fixed the economy.

And they might just fix the economy once they stop the aforementioned jacking around.

Do you really want these blowhards messing around with College football? Do you really, in your heart of hearts, think they can come up with a solution to whatever problem they are inventing there?

I'm sick and tired of congress using the "interstate commerce" excuse to perform a colonoscopy (a big, bungling, invasive, clumsy colonoscopy) on every single aspect of American life. Sure, the BCS needs to be fixed. But what the blankety is Congress doing mucking around in it? Have any of those guys and girls ever been successful in anything other than scarfing up power and eating up other people's freedom? I guess now that they've won the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and have righted the economy - well, after all those successes, they may as well swoop in to save the BCS day.

(Note: I realize that last sentence is a gross overgeneralization, and highly snarky too. But it felt good to say it.)

I don't think that Congress is in a position to tell the BCS what they should do, but are certainly in a position to tell them what they cannot do.

Simply, I don't want them to fix the BCS in terms of forcing a system upon them through legislation, but I DO want them to fix the issue of certain states holding an overly strong upper-hand with taxpayer monies. It's completely unfair.

(I realize that my personal favorite team is a part of the elite group of teams that are holding the little man down)

I DO NOT want Congress to force a playoff system, per se, but if that occurs as a result of their action, I certainly would not be upset. Congress does have the right, however, to ask the BCS to not illegally market themselves (calling their winner the "National Champion" when it is highly debatable whether or not the process submits a team that can hold such a claim as true), and to prevent unfair collusion.

In general, I want the government to butt out. But we all agree that the government serves great purpose when it prevents societal wrongs, and an organization not putting forth a fair contest when hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake to potential taxpayer, governmental institutions certainly qualifies. Additionally, I believe mandating that an organization be honest in their marketing is a proper role for the government to fill.

Also -
I realize that Congress (and the Federal Government, in general) has largely overstepped their bounds, Constitutionally speaking. But do you not consider the BCS interstate commerce? If not, which state do you propose oversee it so I can begin to direct my complaints thusly?

In general, I want the government to butt out. But we all agree that the government serves great purpose when it prevents societal wrongs, and an organization not putting forth a fair contest when hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake to potential taxpayer, governmental institutions certainly qualifies. Additionally, I believe mandating that an organization be honest in their marketing is a proper role for the government to fill.

Why is this just now an issue? How long has the bowl system been going on?

I heartily disagree with you on this one. Congress can't do everything. And we're talking about a sport. It's not like they are bravely busting up an oil monopoly or something.

It's ridiculous. They need to butt out. Surely there is other recourse to fix the BCS (full disclosure, I want an 8 team playoff) without getting the federal government involved?

We disagree. I don't think I'll ever be swayed over to your way of thinking. But, then again, I've never been as disgusted with Congress as I am right now. I don't want them to do anything right now, other than get out of our faces.

(if you haven't noticed, I've turned into a curmudgeon. A curmudgeon in high dudgeon :-)

Uh, hey guys? What is BCS? You're talking over my head dudes.

Oh and Bob Sacamento...I really liked your comment. (#4) I think your statement is the one that sums up my own opinion on the subject. Very nicely done.

BCS=Bowl Championship Series

If it helps at all, the main people behind these efforts are Republicans, and - for the most part - it doesn't look like anything they do will ever gain traction anyway. So your wish is likely reality.

The closest thing the Republicans have to consider a victory is the rider on the Bill that was passed early this week that allows gun owners to carry in national parks. The Bill it was "amending" was the Credit Reform Bill, which I would have liked a few years ago when our economy was stronger, but is now something that won't help us emerge out of our economical malaise any time soon.

As far as why this is just now an issue I think has genesis in a few factors:
-National Hatred for the BCS is at an all-time high
-Utah, Hatch's state's hometeam, was snubbed for the second time this past year after going undefeated and not being allowed to play for a national title whose winnings end up around $20 million dollars (to a public, tax-payer funded school), not to mention marketing, branding rewards numbering in the hundreds of millions
-The Republicans, as a minority, are able to take advantage of items like these since they are not setting the agenda when it comes to the economy or other major issues. It's hard to work diligently on solutions to our economic woes when you know you won't even have a seat at the table to propose them

On a sidenote, I haven't really heard much about the BCS issue lately. It doesn't seem to me that much time has been invested into this. And if I knew that Texas was losing millions of dollars on a consistent basis and Cornyn/Hutchison had power to change something and did nothing, I'd look into their replacement's candidacies a little more strongly.

Maybe you (Bill) and I can go see Up together and research ways for you to advance from your curmudgeonly state of gloom. Eeyore to the max, man.

"If it helps at all, the main people behind these efforts are Republicans,"


Actually, that makes it worse :-)

I'll write more in a bit.

I'm out at a soccer tournament and doing this on my bb.- hope it comes out ok. We're between games (blake scored in our 2-1 victory earlier)

Quaid - quick question (that I don't know the answer to) - why does Utah get snubbed? I thought it was because they were in a weaker conference, but I do not know much of these things. What are you proposing congress do?

Regarding the interstate commerce issue.Today almost every business engages in interstate commerce. Do we not already have enough laws on the books to handle this? Or do we need Congress as the defacto board of directors and our President as the super CEO of every company? How about telling car companies what kind of cars they can build, or restaurants what kind of food they can serve. Soon they'll be telling YOU what you're allowed to think.All for the greater good,of course.

You asked me "which state" you should complain to. Why does it have to be a governmental entity? That reflex is strange to see in a person who is, by all accounts, a conservative republican. And I think that's why the republicans are floundering. Even republicans think Government is the answer to everything and appear to want government intervention in everything. It's disheartening to watch.

Who runs the bcs? Is it the ncaa? Some other ruling body? Why not go to them?

Why should Utah try to divert resources from the federal government to get more money? Is there no other way?

Feel free to vote against our representatives if they fail to use their stubbornly grasped power to extort money out of other people. But count me out.

We need to start standing athwart history, yelling "stop", or we can kiss our God given freedoms goodbye.


I say all this in (I hope) good-faith as a blessed citizen of this country and cognizant that God has set up the ruling authorities. I'm not calling for rebellion. Just a little less self-interest and ends-justify-the-means representation.

Ultimately we get the government we vote for. And, we live in an age where everyone (even you?) seems to want more of it. So, yeah, I've not that optimistic.

"why does Utah get snubbed?"
It's a good question and different people offer different answers, depending on who you ask. The primary reason is that the BCS is comprised of six conferences who represent app. 65 football teams. This is about half of the highest-tier of teams. The rules the BCS has set up makes it difficult for a team outside of one of these conferences to make it to the national championship. In fact, only the highest BCS-ranked non-BCS conference team can even play in a BCS bowl. So, if there are two undefeated non-BCS teams, one of them loses out - even if every team in the BCS conferences has one or two losses.

This being left out results in a loss of app. $10 million, at minimum for that school/football program.

As far as government interference in commerce, I'm against what the government has done with the auto bailout, but I am for the Senate/House clarifying legislation to uphold the spirit of existing anti-collusion laws.

So many people have complained to the NCAA/BCS committee, but they don't care to listen. Frankly, they don't have to unless the government steps in because the richest schools control everything. It's a classic haves/have-nots. I don't expect our government to do everything, and I'd rather it not have to do anything. But we're witnessing what appears to me as blatant wrong-doing and there's no one stopping them.

Some schools have talked about suing the NCAA for antitrust issues, but that's like a Venezuelan threatening Hugo Chavez.

The only practical solution I've heard offered that doesn't involve the government is a viewership boycott of the Championship game. If the nation decides to stop watching the game, then the ad revenue dries up (eventually). So, I have planned to watch the game only if Texas is playing in it. That won't change anything in the short-term, but it may help.

I'm not a person who wants to resort to government intervention at every turn, but this system has existed now for about 12 years and it stopped evolving too soon. They promised to refine it over time and they've made no significant changes in the past few years - meanwhile schools who deserve tens of millions of dollars are being shunned and no one does anything about it.

What, Utah didn't get to play in a bowl game? They got zero bowl revenue? I don't think that's the case (but I may be wrong - let me know)

Look, it's unfair that the Yankees can spend $400 million on their payroll and the Astros can only spend 25% of that. But I sure don't want the Government to step in and "fix" that. Other leagues have adopted salary caps, etc, and that seems to work fine. Let the league deal with it.

Some schools have talked about suing the NCAA for antitrust issues, but that's like a Venezuelan threatening Hugo Chavez.

In what way? It would seem to me that if there is an anti-trust issue, the courts are a great place to take care of it.

Why is Government our resort here? Doesn't our congress have better things to do than calibrate college football? And are you willing to live with whatever politically charged, hair-brained scheme they come up with?

Your idea of boycotting will work, if enough people do it. It's a better way.

We've got to stick with principles here. Government is massively overstepping their bounds, in almost every way, these days. Yet why is that OK in this case?

I realize we're not going to see eye to eye on this. My last question was somewhat rhetorical.

The difference between the MLB and the BCS is that Steinbrenner and McClain have an equal vote when it comes to deciding what happens within the league.

In the BCS, each member conference gets one vote and Utah/their conference get no vote. None. They can give input, but that's about it.

Suing the NCAA is a hairy situation since all college athletics is run by them. If a school abstains from the organization and they want to play someone in football, baseball, softball, or whatever, they simply can't, since every other school plays through the NCAA.

I know that the boycott is starting to gain traction and I think that it will get larger press as the season kicks off in a few months - won't you join me? :)

Once again - I don't think the government is the answer for all things or even most things. I also don't think that this issue merits priority or strong attention. I think it gets play in the media because a football playoff/overhaul of the system is en vogue. Just because that's what you hear is going on doesn't mean that it is all that's going on. I don't know of any politician who has made this their personal sacred cow and has placed any emphasis on this over more important issues.

I realize you don't think that this should be considered at all, and, as you've noted, we disagree. If you believe that it's appropriate to pursue this within the judicial branch, then I don't see how you don't consider that approaching the government to help solve things. Especially if the law that the judicial branch is charged with interpreting hasn't been extrapolated to our current societal/cultural situation. The BCS promised to police themselves, but seems to have stopped short of being completely fair in favor of maintaining money/income for those schools who are already in control.

Well, the good news is we're still friends (I hope) :-)

Final note: you wrote: I realize you don't think that this should be considered at all, and, as you've noted, we disagree. If you believe that it's appropriate to pursue this within the judicial branch, then I don't see how you don't consider that approaching the government to help solve things.

I'm not against our governmental institutions. We have the best system in the world, with all its flaws.

But there's a big difference between a lawsuit and getting Congress involved. A lawsuit at least has a slight chance of not becoming a circus, and it, ostensibly, tries to find the truth based on current laws.

Congress becomes a circus, because its members are intent on getting re-elected, rather than troubling with any quaint notions of truth or the rule of law. So it's a chance for them all to grandstand on national TV, to bully witnesses they've dragged to hearings against their will, to excel in sanctimony and BS-ification, and to wax eloquent at how shocked, SHOCKED! they are at this great injustice, etc.

They should have kept their noses out of the steroids mess as well. Why couldn't the MLB take care of that?

Congress's job should be to appopriate money in the most efficient and wise way possible, authorize use of force to protect our coastlines and borders, and - on occasion - pass laws that establish justice, secure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty.

All the while keeping this in the forefront:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.