Earlier this week a colleague told me the government was planning to subsidize the purchase of television sets. I scoffed, thinking that’s something the government surely would never do, and anyway, why not subsidize books?

Turns out my colleague was right, as evidenced by this government-issue $40 coupon to purchase digital TV.

Think that’s the extent of the government bailing out dinosaur media?  Think again.

Check out Wall Street Journal editor Paul Steiger’s farewell column on the media in the weekend WSJ (click here, password required).
A fascinating — and stunning — tidbit:

… the vast array of investigative reporting and foreign correspondence assembled at American newspapers over the past several decades is being cut back at all but a few publications, as papers succumb to the pressure to cut costs.

Many journalists and academics see in these cutbacks a threat to the democratic ideal of a well-informed public. Some urge turning to philanthropy or an expansion of public television as a way to fill the gap. Others have begun to argue for a government subsidy for newspapers — an unlikely prospect for now.

“Unlikely” aside, the fact that a government subsidy of newspapers is being considered at all is quite alarming, on two fronts: 1)  Must the government solve everything?  Homer Simpson put it best, in another context: “Donuts, is there anything they can’t do?”  Likewise: government, is there anything it can’t subsidize?  And (2)  If a form of media is dying, let it fail on its own accord.  It’s called the free market.  Heck, one day I’m sure blogging will decline in popularity.  Let’s hope that when that happens, no one calls for a government subsidy of blogging.  Although truth be told, if the feds will be handing out money to blog, you better believe I’ll be first in line.  But really hating it.

National Journal’s Ron Brownstein made a shrewd, revealing, and refreshing observation on Sunday’s “Meet the Press“:

The most dangerous thing for any politician is to play into a pre-existing storyline. When Dan Quayle misspelled potato, I mean, if Bill Clinton had misspelled potato, no—everybody would’ve said he was tired.  Dan Quayle, it was like, “He doesn’t know how to spell potato.” For Hillary Clinton, clearly the answer that you just played, played into what is her biggest vulnerability in this race, the sense that she may be too political, too evasive, not always telling, you know, the, the—fudging answers and so forth.  So, in that sense, her response was very much a clear attempt to shore up that…in the second debate, and was going to shore up that vulnerability.”

It’s rare for a leading member of the political media to pull the curtain up to expose the concept of pre-existing narratives.  It’s a concept that repeatedly plays into press coverage of politics and campaigns. Brownstein’s vintage Dan Quayle potato tale from the 1988 campaign is the classic example; that was a relentless story largely driven by a smarmy press corps.  Hopefully the storyline of exposing the storylines will continue.

Bless the Weekly Standard’s parody page for pointing out this item from the Oct. 14 New York Times Book Review:

Michael Kinsley, who reviews Alan Greenspan’s ‘’Age of Turbulence'’ this week, has a résumé that seems to have been assembled with the express purpose of inspiring awe. At present, he is a columnist for Time, but he has also been the editor of The New Republic and Harper’s, the editorial and opinion editor of The Los Angeles Times, the American editor of The Economist and the founding editor of the online magazine Slate. Along with numerous television appearances, he has written for The New Yorker, The Washington Post, The Times of London and, of course, the Book Review.

That’s what passes for awe these days?  Sorry, but I didn’t see a Nobel Peace Prize or a Super Bowl ring on the list.  No sale.

The Politico’s sensational gossip columnist Anne Schroeder has this fun item in her marvelous “Shenanigans” column:

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press was going to have its black-tie fundraiser gala at the about-to-be-open Newseum.  Then, disaster: Rumors abounded that the Newseum construction wouldn’t be completed in time — in this case, by Oct. 30. So they moved the $500-a-seat, $10,000-and-$25,000-a-table gala to everyone’s favorite — or not — fallback, the Andrew Mellon Auditorium.

I draw your attention, however, to this quote:

The RCFP’s executive director, Lucy Dalglish, told us: “Tickets are expensive, but we haven’t done a major black-tie fundraiser in D.C. since 1997 and are committed to not throwing another in D.C. for another four years. I know it’s a stretch for individual reporters, but I also know that the reporters in this town get paid pretty darn well when they work for major newspapers.”

How much is pretty darn well?  Lobbying disclosure, candidate contribution dislcosure — perhaps it’s time for journalist salary disclosure?

We learn this from the New York Post:

The New York Times is poised to stop charging readers for online access to its Op-Ed columnists and other content, The Post has learned.

After much internal debate, Times executives - including publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. - made the decision to end the subscription-only TimesSelect service but have yet to make an official announcement, according to a source briefed on the matter.

Like most things in life, the news leads us immediately to cite the exchange early in “Godfather II” between Michael Corleone and Senator Geary:

MICHAEL: We’re all part of the same hypocrisy, Senator.  But never think it applies to my family.
GEARY: All right, then let me say you’ll pay me because it’s in your interests to pay me.  I’ll expect your answer, with payment, by tomorrow morning.  Only don’t contact me…from now on, deal only through Turnbull.
MICHAEL: Senator… you can have my answer now if you’d like.  My offer is this. Nothing…not even the thousand dollars for the Gaming Commission, which I’d appreciate if you would put up personally.

Inspired by Michael Corleone, I now respectfully and quietly say to the New York Times, I’d appreciate if you would personally return my $49.95 to read Frank Rich.

Matthew Dowd may have made news last weekend.  Today, it’s a different Dowd — presumably Maureen Dowd.

Fishbowl DC alerts us to ths vicious Onion item:

“Your reputation is everything here at the Times, and if you want get known, you’ve got to deliver what readers want: differences between men and women, and photos of cats,” national political reporter Adam Nagourney said. “I suppose I could be most e-mailed, too, if I sat in front of my computer all day making up cutesy names for government officials, like some redheaded Wednesday and Saturday columnists I know.”

Someone we know, indeed.  Perhaps  one day reality will reflect parody.

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan gave his final press conference today.  Too bad it also wasn’t the last appearance for some members of the UN press corps.

Check out this sampling from the “questions” he got.

Q: I would wish you good luck and goodbye and hope you have a good time when you go underground; and when you surface please do come and see us sometimes….

Q: I’d like to say, is that in your time in office, you have given hope to millions of dispossessed people. And for that, I would say, you will be well remembered…

Q: There seems to be a buzz in the building about more manager-CEO than diplomat-rock star. Maybe that’s directed at you. Is that the best way to go forward for this new administration?

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, first of all, I’d like to thank you, for the past 10 years, for all your answers on the Balkans, some of which you helped me to make even headlines. …

Q: Dear Mr. Kofi Annan, first, on behalf of the Islamic Republic News Agency, I deeply want to thank you for your 10-year service and accomplishment. Good luck for your future journey…

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, I’m going to use the word “transparency” rather than “corruption”…

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, during your time here as the Secretary-General, you’ve made some great appointments….

Q: Thank you, Mr. Secretary-General, for what you have done for Lebanon during your tenure; we will be missing you….

So what do you suppose the are odds that Helen Thomas or David Gregory will treat President Bush this same way during his final press conference?

Sen. George Allen (R-VA) has introduced a bill that would let visitors carry a concealed firearm into a national park.

Perfect fodder for ridicule by the Big Media Left, right?  You got it.

Here’s some belittling language the New York Times scared up in its Wednesday editorial:

“a last little gift to America” … “we hope it will die the miserable death it deserves.  America’s confusion about the Second Amendment is now nearly total” … “armed paranoia” … “zealots who believe that the Second Amendment trumps all others, the parks are merely another badland, like schools and church parking lots”

Everything there but any facts or arguments which might make a sensible or reasonable case for Allen’s side.

For that, we had to wait two days — and search local coverage.

We learn these interesting facts and points of view in today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch.

• “In a twist, an Oct. 30 campaign letter by Jim Webb — the Democrat who narrowly defeated Allen — shows that he promised to introduce similar legislation.  ‘And I intend to get it to the floor for a vote,’ added Webb, who also noted his possession for many years of a concealed-carry permit and his regular shooting activity.”
• “some parks that authorize hunting do permit firearms use during open hunting season.”
• “A champion for Allen’s bill, Mike McHugh of Front Royal, is president of the Virginia Gun Owners Coalition.  ‘It’s odd that you can carry in the General Assembly in Virginia, but if you’re out in remote areas, like the Appalachian Trail, where two women had their throats slit … you can’t defend yourself,’ said McHugh, referring to the slayings of two hikers in 1996.”

Whether Allen’s bill is good policy should make for robust debate.  But is it too much to ask the New York Times to put facts first and mockery second?  Probably.

In Sunday’s paper, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell reignites the debate over media bias about politics. It’s a valiant, laudatory effort — “here I go into the lion’s den,” she writes– but in the end Howell rounds up the familiar folks to weigh in: Tom Rosentiel, S. Robert Lichter, and other usual suspects.

And therein lies the rub for furthering the debate over media bias. I’ve tried to argue this point with my conservative brethren for ages: Ultimately, the problem with the media is not liberal bias, for which there is abundant evidence, nor conservative bias, for which the evidence is far rarer, if it all. Rather, the unfortunate truth of today’s media is universality of thought. It’s fear of considering something new. It’s adhering to tried formulas and talking heads, whether or not they’re true or wise. It’s seeking comfort and stability in what all others are reading and seeing.

For liberals, that means a comfort zone called the New York Times. I’ve spent sufficient time in newsrooms to see the profound impact that the grey old lady has on story selection and editorial judgment. Not only because the paper is friendly territory for liberals — it surely is — but because it’s New York, where all the media execs live. If the New York Times has covered a story, then it’s safe to pursue for others. If it hasn’t, then don’t touch it.

Conservatives don’t get a free pass for this type of criticism. Try going on a conservative talk show without first scanning the Drudge Report to forecast which topics the host will raise. It can’t be done. Drudge provides the same cover for conservatives that the NYT does for liberals.

The media beast is a creature of habit. There’s little enterprise of thought. It keeps true to narratives and story lines: Gore is a earthtone-wearing weirdo. Bush is dumb. Try arguing against either of those points and you’ll be laughed out of the talk show studio. Even worse, the host or anchor will never ask you back.

No, the big-picture problem with the media isn’t bias — although it indeed is biased in favor of liberals. It’s laziness. Balance the newsroom politics, yes. But bring in new ideas. And try not reading the New York Times for a day.

In the Los Angeles Times, this correction …

Gay Republicans: An article in Section A on Wednesday about friction in the Republican Party between gays and religious conservatives said Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) had a campaign manager who is gay. The Allen staff member who is gay is his communications director.

…is right above this one:

Wesley Snipes indictment: A Business section article Wednesday about the indictment of Wesley Snipes on tax fraud charges gave two ages, 42 and 44, for the actor. Snipes is 44.

Fact checking?  Out.  Multiple choice?  In.