News-Record.com

Yeah, just imagine-a newspaper, with a daily- news monopoly no less, no longer able to shill for certain interest groups.

A "thanks, but no thanks"-disaster waiting to happen.

Agreed, Doug.

What ever happened to news outlets just reporting the news?

Why do papers have to "endorse" candidates? It's never moved me one way or the other when making a decision on which candidate I vote for.

News papers aren't just about reporting news anymore - it's about how many papers you can peddle. TV news isn't about reporting news anymore - it's about ratings.

It would be nice to find a news outlet that just reported the news and nothing but the news.

What will happen when all newspapers become non-profits? I shudder to think about this senatorial idea..Has Senator Cardin read our Constitution of the United States lately or does he spend his time spinning useless unconstitutional messes? He gets paid for it by us with pension and health care a free car lease, an office, cell phone and staff and world travel.. what does he care?

Good issues for discussion. At one time, newspapers were purposely partisan and recklessly bombastic. They evolved to the point where there was a defined separation between news and opinion. Nothing conceived by the mind of man can be totally without bias of some sort, and sometimes readers apply their own biases. You will never see a publication that everyone would agree only reports "the news." Simply deciding what's news or choosing which news to print and which to leave out entails judgment.

I'm happy for everyone who can make up his own mind about candidates without considering anyone else's opinions. Unfortunately, many voters are poorly informed, especially about candidates down the ballot. That's where newspaper endorsements can be helpful, at least as something to consider. I never thought of writing an endorsement as telling anyone how to vote. When I've had the opportunity to interview candidates and look at their platforms, I feel I have something to add to the public discussion that might be helpful to some voters. One area where I think this is especially true is judicial races. Do voters really know best? Based on some election results, I don't think so.

I regret that we didn't make an endorsement in last year's soil and water conservation board election in Guilford County. Voters elected someone who was apparently running under a false name and consequently could not be certified as the rightful winner. Maybe we could have helped prevent that, although I suppose some voters would have resented it since they don't need anyone to tell them how to vote.

But journalism with government strings attached ... in this country?* Doug

Yep! Happens all the time! What do you think when a government's spokenperson gets mad at the mainstream media and threated to cut off their access to their elected officals when the media attacks their officals? Of course we could have corporate ownership or a monopoly of the media or markets to control the mind-set of the public and make it a Orwellian paradise. Oh, that wouldn't never happen in a free society of open information? Right? or maybe one is dreaming that GE owns NBC or Disney owns ABC, or Vicon owns CBS or Clear Channel owns 1500 hundred Radio and TV outlets in this country.

Gosh! What if the government decides to control the internet on information or maybe they have already decided to do that with Senator Rockfeller [ D-WV] recent suggestion to that.

At one time newspapers were partisan and reckless ? That time is now.
Ann Coulter, fag remark about John Edwards, big deal
George Allen, remark using the word Wicca, big deal.
Nancy Pelosi, you would have to be crazy to enforce immigration laws. Not a word.
Obama, bad bowling, like special olympics.
Not a word.
Public radio and TV, paid for by taxpayers, to be a advertising agent for liberals.
My opinion the time is now to charge sales tax on newspapers. not likely the good ole boys in Raleigh would tax their best friends.

Doug J, I read more about Obama's bowling comment in the news than any of the others you mentioned, and I love reading dumb things conservatives say. In fact, I hadn't heard the Coulter and Allen remarks (you're not referring to Allen's "macaca" comment are you?). Anyway, keep in mind that Coulter says things like that because she hopes the media will get in a tizzy over it.

While I'd hate for newspapers to all be under a deal Cardin mentions, I think if it's an option between folding or taking it I think some papers should take it. I think a good media model is the BBC, which is largely government-funded, yet definitely will go hard after the British government. In fact, they are much less credulous of the government than American media usually is (at least when a Republican's in the White House). In my opinion, they're one of the best news organizations in the world. Granted they're not a newspaper, but most of my interaction with them when I'm in this country is reading the online news, which is the same way I usually interact with newspapers.