Blog Stage 4: Another Critique

This critique is in line with participation topic #2 regarding the decline of newspapers. Apparently the FTC, in a bid to support the waning media, put forth proposals for levying fees on some blogs, other online news services, and taxing a number of electronic devices which can be used to access the internet and consume media. The revenue generated form these proposed fees and taxes would be distributed to the media companies as a means of supporting them. This speaks not just to the media industry but also to the issue of government involvement in the economy and where the line should be drawn on such matters. There is an editorial on the blog Free Republic that discusses this proposed media rescue measure.


The author is obviously trying to connect with a more conservative audience. The entire article carries a tone that is disapproving of government involvement in economic affairs. In this particular instance, I think the author has a good point. The media industry (at least circulated, printed medium) is declining because there is not enough demand to support the supply. It doesn’t need to be upheld, it should be allowed to follow the course that technological advances and changing US culture have destined for it: Diminution. There is no need for government agencies to step in and rescue it.

The evidence the author uses to support his/her point, however, is a bit sketchy. It’s circumstantial, and the author interprets it incorrectly in my opinion. This proposal was not a bill that was nearly passed on the Congressional Floor. This appears to be a product of one government agency (the FTC) exploring the possibility and feasibility of instituting such fees and taxes as a means of advising a Senate Judiciary Committee. This is a proposal in its’ infancy, being put forth by a tiny group. It would have to pass through committee, make it to the Senate Floor, pass the Floor, go to the House, pass through House committee, pass the House Floor, make it through almost certain conference committee if it even made it that far, and then also survive Presidential approval. I think it’s ridiculous to feel threatened by a proposal so far away from becoming reality and so obviously likely to be struck down by many others in Congress.

I do agree that this proposal is reaching too far. A poll, in the Washington Times article this editorial is linked to, shows that ¾ of people questioned also disagreed with this proposal. The fact is, we have the Congressional system set up to negate (at least hopefully negate) such single-minded and narrow-interest bills. If such a proposal actually reached the President’s desk, I would be greatly concerned, but not until then. While I appreciate the fervor with which this conservative author proclaims their indignation at such a proposal, he/she also blows the magnitude of it up to absurd levels as if to say: “look at me!” Further consideration of the entire situation could have resulted in a more respectful and mature disagreement with the issue.