Deafening Silence

Over at Ambivablog there has been much discussion of the over-the-top, apocolyptic fears of both right and left since the inauguration.

In order to adequately describe this phenomenon, I would like to announce that I have coined a new word:

Hystonoia.

Like it?  It has a touch of the Greek, a sort of Lexicographical cachet, doesn't it.

To wit:

hystonoia (hist.o.noy.a)-n. An overwrought emotional state composed of equal parts hysteria and paranoia, commonly induced by imagining that a political foe has the evil powers of Darth Vader;2. n. Statements made by a person in such a state.

For example:

President Obama is scheming to put the United States under Sharia Law.

Hystonoia!

911 was an evil plot to murder Americans cooked up by Cheney and Haliburton!

Hystonoia!

FEMA is setting up camps to imprison political dissidents!

Hystonoia!

The United States is going to erupt into civil war between the Red and Blue states!

Hystonoia!

The Octo-Mommy is pregnant again!

Hysterectomy!

Err---sorry.

But you get the idea.

This was the first news story I saw this morning:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With many U.S. newspapers struggling to survive, a Democratic senator on Tuesday introduced a bill to help them by allowing newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks.

"This may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat," said Senator Benjamin Cardin.

A Cardin spokesman said the bill had yet to attract any co-sponsors, but had sparked plenty of interest within the media, which has seen plunging revenues and many journalist layoffs.

Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.

Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

Some bloggers are casting this a payola to a compliant press that "dragged Obama over the finish line."  Others are sneering that it will make newspapers into another branch of NPR/PBS.

Enjoy that schadenfreude while it's still hot.  It might not be so delightful later.

The concept of turning struggling newspapers into 501(c)(3) charities creates more problems than it solves.  Like all largesse, the very idea presents both donor and recipient with challenging temptations.  Consider:

• Any business that does not have to worry about making a profit does not have to worry much about competition, either.  Newspapers accepting this offer could quickly come to dominate the industry at the expense of independent publications.
• The language of the bill could be interpreted to give the government editorial powers:

"the newspaper...contains local, national, and international news stories of interest to the general population and the distribution of such newspaper is necessary or valuable in achieving an educational purpose, and

"the preparation of the material contained in such newspaper follows methods generally accepted as educational in character."

How is the educational value measured?  Who determines it?  Would the paper lose its 501(c)(3) status if the 'educational value' is suddenly found wanting?  If so, would there be a means of appeal for the paper to regain it's status?  Or would it simply be forced out of print?

What, exactly, are 'generally accepted methods'? Who defines these? Would there be a commission established to define and police these methods? Would there be penalties if they are not followed?

• Would the acceptance of 501(c)(3) status impose undue burdens on the newspaper?  Would it need to create a special department devoted to legally justifying and maintaining its status?

• Could awarding a special tax status to certain publications create a kind of government-approved juggernaut, drowning out non-favored competition?  Could applying for 501(c)(3) status simply become the 'cost of doing business'?

• If applying for such status becomes a de facto necessity, who in government do we trust to handle such power?

• How would this affect the work of individual journalists?  Would they have one set of rules and regulations when writing for nonprofit newspapers and another when employed by for-profit newspapers?  Could this lead to official government licenses for journalists?

• This is not as far-fetched as it may sound.  In 2007 the House of Representatives passed the Free Flow of Information Act, which was designed to protect journalists from being forced to reveal confidential sources.  In order to protect journalists, however, the House had to define who they were.  Here is the language they settled on:

  “… a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or  other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person’s livelihood or for substantial financial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.”