Different models for news

CQ Politics | Lifelines Sought for Flagging Newspaper Industry:
[Via CQ Politics]

Alarmed by the daily drumbeat of stories about the demise of newspapers in their hometowns, some members of Congress are proposing ways to help, from allowing media organizations to form as nonprofits to easing antitrust laws.

But the proposals have met with skepticism from some newspaper analysts who worry about the media’s ability to maintain its autonomy.

[More]

Newspapers are going to have to adapt. Their big revenue stream, Classified Ads, is gone. Their newsworthiness is diminishing by all the cutbacks.

Perhaps an online only version , such as the Seattle PI, will be one model. I’m a little fascinated by the non-profit route. Some legislation is being proposed that would allow them to be fully non-profit, with the tax-advantages that entails.

“We’re losing our local papers and it’s tragic. We need to look at a different model to save local newspapers,” said Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin , D-Md.

Cardin introduced a bill Tuesday that would permit newspapers to operate as nonprofits, or 501(c)3 corporations, much as public broadcasting now does.

Under this arrangement, advertising and subscription revenue would be tax-exempt, and contributions to support coverage or operations could be tax-deductible.

So, make them like PBS. It would be an intriguing model, although I can only see this working for local news organizations. It is much more expensive to fund a nationwide paper vis a non-profit model.

Unless a modern day Hearst wants to set up a foundation to run major papers.

Technorati Tags: General

Deniers in charge of science

by jeffk
Texas: From saved to doomed in just 6 hours!:
[Via Bad Astronomy]

Well, that was fast.

Texas Board of Education creationist Barbara Cargill today proposed an amendment to the science standards saying that teachers have to tell their students there are different estimates for the age of the Universe. This is not even a veiled attempt to attack the Big Bang model of …

[More]

Well, we find out today if Texas education will regress towards the 16th Century or whether reason prevails (You can follow the live blog here.). I bet it will be a toss-up. Maybe they will change some of the amendments along the way.

This one amendment is just great. So, not only is the head of the board here a creationist but we have a young Earth creationist preposing amendments saying that there are different estimates for the age of the Universe. It would appear then that teachers in Teas can now teach all about how the Earth is really less than 10,000 years old and they will be teaching to the standards..

I hope reason prevails but I doubt it. How is it possible that such an important science board has such anti-science people on it? I’d like to think that there are reasonable people in charge but this is truly ridiculous.

Technorati Tags: Politics, Science

Banned for life?

JAMA’s editors make sewage out of lemonade:
[Via Effect Measure]

When the Wall Street Journal called attention to a claim that the Journal of the American Medical Association called a whistle-blower a “nobody” and a “nothing,” a claim JAMA denied, I didn’t know what to think. I was inclined to give JAMA the benefit of the doubt. Whatever dealings I’ve had (and they are few) with JAMA’s editor in chief, Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, she’s been pleasant and has a reputation for being a tough and intelligent editor. It sounded as if someone had gotten a little irritated and maybe said things in a way that wasn’t quite appropriate, but these things happen. But now what was just dumbass is being elevated to the level of policy.

First some background.

[More]

This looks pretty ugly. When a journal appears to ban someone for something, it should be for fraud or the like, not because that person discussed a foul-up by the journal. Instead of thanking the person, they let him know that any paper with his name on it will not be published.

The whole thing about a conflict of interest statement is really for appearances sake. The appearance of a conflict can be as damaging as the real thing so report it early.

So the guys who forgot to detail their conflicts of interest seem to get off while the guy who discussed it gets a lifetime ban.

In the journal’s case, the manner in which it reacted is odd and the huge punitive penalty it levied seems out of place. The overreaction of the journal to this really does make one suspect that something else is going on.

Technorati Tags: Health