Jack Shafer: Don't have a gummint bailout of newspapers

Know something? He's right.

Why should the government subsidize sports coverage, for example, when sports comes back? Or the funny pages?

Second, how do you write language to keep vulture capitalists from getting any of this? (I disagree with Shafer's quasi-libertarian attitude toward vulture capitalists in general, but that's another story.)

Third, how do you keep the gummint from meddling once it gives you money?

None of these are easily addressed, and given Washington's coronavirus bailout bills so far, none of them will be addressed if such a bill passes.

A lot of this applies more to daily than non-daily papers, and more to corporately than non-corporate ones. But, in a lot of rural counties, a nondaily paper owned either by a "family" publisher or a small chain, may be the only paper there is. If they get bailout money, will they be told not to criticize the local Extension agent? Or not worry about the Soil Conservation Service's old impoundment dam?

And, to go beyond Shafter, there's a reason local papers didn't get more money already, per The Hill. It's the way they're incorporated. Blame the ownership for that. As I've written before, your local newspaper is incorporated in a way your local State Farm office is, namely, so that the ownership reaps the benefits first, but the local staff shoulders the blame first.

A number of years ago, Ben Carden proposed giving all newspapers nonprofit status. But again, how do you keep the vulture capitalists from a big tax writeoff with that?