This House would subsidise news media outlets

So much so that I kiwi believe it, are you lemon me believe this? I think I’ve exhausted all my fruit puns now… I do apologise if my method of debate structuring is not appl-easing to you (ooh, there was one left! ). Rebuttal XII: “Giving their competitors money to keep them afloat is essentially killing the free market! ” False, because we are giving ALL news outlets a share of the same fixed pot, and that share is related to their current performance. If we were just giving money to companies falling within certain brackets, or companies who were in trouble, then that WOULD be unfair to the free market and I would agree with you. The great beauty of this plan, however – and you yourself have accepted this in a previous speech – is that it doesn’t affect the balance of power in the journalistic world. It’s supporting the industry as a whole and not a particular bracket of outlets. Rebuttal XIII: “There would be no reason why a paper wouldn’t just overcirculate itself. .. ” I’m not sure I understand your point here as it works against you. If a paper works to increase its circulation – and remember these statistics are calculated based on readership, not just number printed – then more people become reliant upon it for receiving news (something we want to ENCOURAGE) and as such they are all the more eligible for this funding, as they become important players within the market. (I feel this rebuttal is also adequate response to my opponent’s R2). Rebuttal XIV: “As long as there are people willing to pay for print journalism, there will be a way to get them print journalism. ” Pro has already shown that print journalism is becoming inherently unprofitable, and Con has not really rebutted this. You yourself have said that most print journalism outlets are turning digital in an effort to stay afloat. Are people still willing to pay for print journalism? Somewhat surprisingly, circulation figures would suggest you are. Yet many newspapers are becoming online-only due to lack of profit. So I reject this point. Rebuttal XV: “This government subsidy to the outdated methods of distributing news will naturally tip the balance against internet journalism. ” Not really, because the two cater to different markets, in general. Only informed young people like you and I are the real market who use both means – older people such as my parents exclusively use traditional outlets whereas most young people exclusively use the Internet. The point is that many people still need traditional forms of journalism because they are unable or unwilling to switch completely to digital means. So the balance will not be tipped, or even significantly altered, as this is an exercise in keeping print journalism alive while people still need it and not encouraging some print renaissance. Rebuttal XVI: “There is absolutely no reason to mess with the process as it would be counter-productive. ” The reason why we need to mess with the process is that journalism is much more significant than the DVD v VHS example my opponent constantly insists on falling back on. This has much bigger consequences. If people aren’t getting the news, then they can’t make responsible and informed political decisions, and Pro has demonstrated this to be a very dangerous state of affairs indeed. So if we do nothing and print journalism dies while many still rely on it, the result will be disastrous for politics and participation. Rebuttal XVII: “This plan violates the United States Constitution. ” This point from my opponent essentially seems to be a diatribe about the bounds I have set for this debate, but I’d like to refer him to the resolution of the debate. “This House would…” means exactly that. It means that if Pro were in government of a particular jurisdiction, they would enact the following change. (I’d like to refer voters to the comments section, where this was clarified before the start of the debate). So my opponent’s attempts to portray this as violating sovereignty are simply not the case, as they would be enacted perfectly legally within each jurisdiction. In some countries more legislation – perhaps even a constitutional amendment – would be needed. I would also argue that this in no way violates freedom of speech because, as I have said time and time again, this maintains the same balance of power. It does not UNDULY promote a particular view. So Con’s point is invalid. Rebuttal XVIII: “If he does not have a plan that solves the world’s issues…” As previously explained but apparently ignored, the reason why my plan is (allegedly) ‘vague’ is that each nation is different and can allocate different levels of funds to this project. There’s no point in me saying that each country should spend 0.04% of GDP on this (that figure was drawn completely out of the sky and should not be quoted) as that would not work for each country, so I would just be lying. Rebuttal XIX: “You can’t assume the NAE is honest. ” Whilst I admire my opponent’s mild anarchistic tendencies and I empathise with them to a certain extent, there isn’t anywhere in particular for my army of civil servants to be biased, which is why my opponent has employed his favourite device – vaguery – and has not actually said how my number crunchers are going to misbehave. And since they operate independent of government influence (by which I mean that the government cannot adjust the shares given to different media companies, before Con sends us trundling down that route again), there’s no risk of being influenced to be generous with figures. All they do – literally – is measure. Rebuttal XX: “Some countries… will legislate no funds towards them [the NAE]. ” OK, maybe my plan was a tiny bit vague there. So let me make it clear: the pot of government money must exceed 0%. I’d like to con-grape-ulate Con on finding a loophole – albeit an unsporting one which only needed clarification and never really existed. I hope he can find solace that he scored one small victory amidst this utter slaughter of everything he stands for. We can clearly see that my opponent is clutching at straws, so I will close Pro’s arguments with a brief summary of the Points of Clash (PoC) in this debate. PoC1: In its current form, is print journalism sustainable? My opponent has argued that many newspaper groups are surviving despite the decline in their industry. Pro, however, has shown that making profit in this industry is nigh-on impossible. Yes, one can go online and introduce a paywall. But Pro has given sources demonstrating that the introduction of paywalls causes traffic to fall dramatically. My opponent has even acknowledged these points. Therefore, this is taken to be true. PoC2: Does this proposal interfere with the free market? My opponent has argued that any subsidisation represents an interference with the free market. Pro, however, has shown that by subsidising all eligible outlets, and by allocating these subsidies to be proportionate to the existing audience of these organisations, it does not unduly affect the free market as it does not affect the balance of power among news media groups. We’re not just supporting ‘failing’ newspapers – we’re supporting the industry as a whole. Pro takes this point. PoC3: Is this plan necessary? Since we have shown PoC1 to be true, the continued existence of print media necessitates subsidisation. We have made the case that we need to keep people reading print media so they are politically informed and they vote. The rest is self-explanatory – or it better be, because I’m out of characters. So orange you glad I waited until the time you asked me to? This has been the best and most fun debate I’ve done on DDO, so I’d like to thank JustinAMoffatt for taking part and being such a good sport. I sincerely hope we keep chatting, and do another debate again in the not too distant future!