[mqatrombone]

I don't really have a problem with a state government giving tax cuts to newspapers, as long as there are no strings attached. Tax cuts aren't necessarily a bailout. If a government gives money or a tax cut to the press in exchange for journalistic favors, then we have a problem. The best way to prevent that is for the government to not give newspapers money. Newspapers receiving ad money from the government is pushing the boundaries of a free press.

I disagree with the President's opinion that newspapers are necessary going forward. Matt Drudge and the Politico have both shown that the functions many newspapers serve (at the national level) can be done better in other ways.

[gaius]

If the government even gets to say who the press is then the door is wide open to corruption. You don't - and shouldn't - need any interaction with or permission or support from the government at all to publish. Those that do cannot help but be beholden if not to the present government then at least to the principle of a state-sanctioned press. That's Communism.

[jonknee]

The government already gets to decide who has access to the important areas (Whitehouse press corp for example). No one is saying that you need permission to publish, only that established journalism outlets would get a tax break. You would still be welcome to take on the NY Times with your blog.

[jonknee]

Matt Drudge does very little reporting (a few times a year there is an exclusive and frequently it's still on the backs of actual reporters), he just points to the work other people have done. A valuable service, but he's more akin to an editor than an actual publication.

You have a point with Politico, but they make most of their money from print (ads in their DC based news paper and syndication with papers around the country).