U.S. Federal Trade Commission wants to ‘save’ mainstream media by taxing your iPad

HOT Apple Computers + FREE Shipping“The Federal Trade Commission says it wants to save journalism. I’m not sure who asked it to,” Jeff Jarvis reports for The New York Post. “In a just-released ‘staff discussion draft’ of ‘potential policy recommendations to support the reinvention of journalism,’ the agency only circles its wagons around old newspapers and their fading business models.”

“I testified before these untechnocrats and told them about my research at CUNY’s Graduate School of Journalism into the emerging ecosystem of news,” Jarvis reports. “We found profitable hyperlocal bloggers selling $200,000 in ads per year. And we built new, less expensive business models for news (at newsinnovation.com). But that’s not mentioned, either.”

Instead, the FTC staff declares defeat in the search for business models so it may explore many government interventions, including:
• Expanding copyright law and restricting the doctrine of fair comment to benefit legacy publishers.
• Granting antitrust exemptions to allow publishers to collude on pricing to consumers and to business partners.
• Giving news organizations tax exemptions.
• Subsidizing news organizations by increasing government funding to public broadcasting; establishing an AmeriCorps to pay reporters; giving news companies tax credits for employing journalists; creating a national fund for local news, and giving the press an increased postal subsidy.

“To its credit, the FTC does ask how to pay for all this. So the staffers speculated about what I’ll dub the iPad tax — a 5 percent surcharge on consumer electronics to raise $4 billion for news. They also consider a tax on broadcast spectrum and even on advertising,” Jarvis reports. “Most dangerous of all, the FTC considers a doctrine of ‘proprietary facts,’ as if anyone should gain the right to restrict the flow of information just as the information is opening it up. Copyright law protects the presentation of news but no one owns facts — and if anyone did, you could be forbidden from sharing them. How does that serve free speech?”

Jarvis writes, “I believe that future is entrepreneurial, not institutional. The industry’s institutions have had 15 years since the start of the commercial Web and we’ve seen how far they can come. What we need now are innovators… But those entrepreneurs don’t need government help. They need to be left alone with the assurance they won’t be interfered with by the FTC — or the FCC, which has its own hearings and reports on the future of journalism. ‘Get off our lawn,’ I testified to both agencies in Washington. That didn’t make it into the report.”

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: “Our government has become too responsive to trivial or ephemeral concerns, often at the expense of more important concerns or an erosion of our liberty, and it has made policy priorities more dependent on where TV journalists happen to point their cameras… As a nation we have lost our sense of tragedy, a recognition that bad things happen to good people. A nation that expects the government to prevent churches from burning, to control the price of bread or gasoline, to secure every job, and to find some villain for every dramatic accident, risks an even larger loss of life and liberty.” – William A. Niskanen

“Information is the currency of democracy.” – Thomas Jefferson

“One way to make sure crime doesn’t pay would be to let the government run it.” – Ronald Reagan

“You know why there are so many whitefish in the Yellowstone River? Because the Fish and Game people have never done anything to help them.” – Russell Chatham


  1. Those who post comments online are generally young liberal males without children.

    Once they grow up, earn some money, understand what paying confiscatory taxes actually means, and/or have kids, they wise up, turn conservative and become too busy to post more than the occasional truth online.

  2. The only thing that will prevent this abhorant government from doing these socialistic acts is us. If that fails, I am open to finding a new home (I’m sure C1 will be glad to see me go).

  3. There are things the government should be involved in, then there are things it should steer clear of. I am offended that the government might choose to support the for-profit Fox network at the same level as the not-for-profit PBS network. This would be less offensive if the “entertainers” on Fox were categorized as such while the news and educational shows on PBS were categorized, and supported, as initially proposed. That would offend the Tea Party types, though, who actually believe the Fox entertainers are providing facts. The tax commented upon would also unfairly target those who know better than to believe Fox’s rantings.
    Pointedly On Topic: this is a political comment. The only link to Apple is the suggested name for the suggested tax. Why is this being covered here?

  4. “48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president’s performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove.” – Rasmussen Reports, June 3, 2010

    Where are these 48%? I have some beautiful, ahem, “waterfront” property in Florida to sell them. Each lot comes with ownership of a bridge in Brooklyn and a lifetime supply of crude oil.

  5. Get over yourself. Fox News is no different than CBS News. Each network wears their biases on their sleeves these days. Your only problem with Fox, of course, is that they lean to the right while every other news outlet leans to the left, which may be your preference, but it hardly makes Fox News less of a news organization than CBS, ABC or NBC.

  6. I smell lobbying by purveyors of dead tree publications. When all else fails, send in the hookers. If government feels its role is to prop up failed business models at the expense of progress, democracy and the free marketplace will lose.

    It’s called socialism.

    What I see the old media attempting to do is to squeeze a balloon. They might succed at compressing one area, but they fail to note the air has been displaced to another. Eventually, it will burst.

    To allow government to artificially prop up old business models will simply make the US fall further behind. But I believe that the marketplace and consumer demands are smarter and faster than any socialist bureaucracy. The market will win.

    This fall, send a message to the socialist bureaucrats. Vote your conscience. Vote your pocketbook. It’s time to take our country back.

    “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later, you run out of other people’s money.”

    – Margaret Thatcher

  7. I voted for Obama because I wasn’t paying much attention and the mainstream media wasn’t doing their job since they were in-the-bag for Obama.

    Today, I apologize publicly to my fellow U.S. citizens for my appalling lack of judgment.

    I promise that I will not make the same mistake if he chooses to run in 2012.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.