For all of those of you who get mad at The Lowell Sun, the Instapundit has a post on Government subsidies to newspapers, here. The post refers to actions up in Maine to keep posting certain legal notices in newspapers.
Then he adds a comment from a reader. Gee, I wish I had written it, but alas I didn't. No, but I know who did.
The question for all of us voters is, should legal notices be in newspapers or on line for all to access who can access the internet. In the interest of a level playing field, not everyone has a newspaper subscription, just as not everyone has access to a computer. All have access to both at their local library.
Regards — Cliff
2 comments:
I always look past "economic impact" BS to ask myself the question--is it creating wealth and/or value? Clearly, by simply transferring money from taxpayers to moribund and otherwise unsustainable businesses, this proposal does not.
I would suggest we could better devote the same money to universal internet availability, including support for local libraries. Dollar for dollar, such an effort would ensure the newspapers' concerns for "economic impact" were safeguarded.
In the meantime, instead of wasting their time on failing internet pay-for-content schemes, these papers could, as an alternative, actually try to develop some relevant local content for a change, and leverage the value of the resulting increased web traffic in more viable ways.
Since when does the Lowell SUN feel that spending public money has a positive economic impact?
I say get the job done in the least expensive way.
Post a Comment