This House would subsidise news media outlets

.. and not. .. um. .. *cough* in any way because I'm a huuuuge procrastinator. Ahem. Now, to my opponent's, initially a-peel-ing, but inevitably fruitless arguments. First, I'd like to lay out my opponent's plan as just the mandates they represent. This will give us a streamlined, concise, and clear vision of exactly what plan Pro is attempting to put into place. This plan will:-Create the NAE in each respective nation, which will measure the audiences of tv, radio, and print news outlets (internet-based outlets not included). -The NAE, based on audience size for a certain outlet, would provide government funding from said country to said outlet. -The rate would probably be caluculate based on "n (cents) x (amount of viewers)"-The NAE would work outside of the government (while still using govt funding) to subsidize news outlets. -The NAE would re-evaluate subsidies every 24 months. Moving on to my opponent's reasons for implementing such an idea. P1 (labeled by Con as Substantive I): It will support the continued existence of print journalismTo start off, I would like to show that this "advantage" to Pro's plan isn't necessarily an advantage at all. My response is twofold.1. The Times is one example, and does not prove the need for subsidies. I have an article[1] below (from 2012) that shows how some of the most famous newspapers of the world are fairing in today's economy. . http://adage.com...Some, such as The Times, The New York Post, and (the same outlet which posted my opponent's source on The Times) The Guardian. However, some outlets, such as Omaha World-Herald, The Wallstreet Journal, and The New York Times, are still turning a profit, despite the dying interest in printed news. This tells us that the financial struggles of these companies are not universal, but a result of free market (driven by the demand of the people). Yes, not all printed news outlets are successful currently. But even in my opponent's article about The Times, it spoke of the famous British newspaper turning to a digital format. You see, the printed versions of such news outlets may be lost, but the news itself, and the companies, will not (provided they adapt). This brings me to my second point here. ..2. Print news should be allowed to die out. Free market, as mentioned earlier, is driven by the people. The people's demands will be reflected in the sales, and (provided businesses are smart) the businesses providing for the people's demands will adapt to the wants/needs of the people. This way, the people are always satisfied. However, what my opponent is proposing is that we subsidize a dying business, which will cause them to not adapt. Note how my opponent's plan does not subsidize internet-based news? This is one fatal error of his. This is because the demand for internet-based news outlets is screaming currently. [2] It is rapidly replacing print, radio, and tv news as the main source of information for the populace. But my opponent's plan seeks to fight this. It seeks to fight against the natural progression of technology and culture, and instead stay with the old. It's comparable to funding VHS companies in a DVD-dominated world (Now, arguably blu-ray or even internet streaming-dominated). Then, when you consider the fact that the companies my opponent's plan is supposed to "save" aren't really in danger, but just seeking to adapt to a digital media. .. . you see that my opponent's plan is unneeded (and actually, counter-productive). P2: Allows continued business competition without overregulationI will agree that my opponent's plan doesn't allow for government intervention in news. However, it does worse than that. We're left with an agency, whose makeup of members is unknown, that can't be stopped by the government. However, they're in charge of which media outlets recieve extra funding (enough to keep their companies afloat! )? And they're paying for it with taxpayer money. .. In summary: This is a bad idea. P3: It will encourage greater representation of the news on television and radioMy opponent touts this as an advantage, as if it were a consequence of his plan that he should be proud of. However, as the source I showed earlier states, and a slew of reports show[3][4][5], the internet is rapidly becoming the source of news. Is it there yet? Not quite, no. But, like with any technological transition, it'll happen naturally in a free market. The fact that my opponent's plan is helping a form of news reporting that is outdated and inefficient does not mean that it's a benefit for the world! By my opponent's logic (and returning to previous analogy), we should have stuck with VHS because our parents watched movies on VHS. I'm not saying that we have to mandate a moving on to DVD, just that we don't impede the progress of society. Now that we have my opponent's points done away with, I shall show a few extra disadvantages. C1: Mandated govt spendingSimply put, some countries don't have the funds to support the media in their country. With a seperate entity telling governments what to do and where to put their money, we don't have the same consideration for the country's financial status as we would with the government handling its own money. (Granted, even with the government handling its own money. .. it's bad. But I digress. .. )This violates national sovreignty on countless levels. But that's not the worst part. .. .C2: Plan is vague"The very first law in advertising is to avoid the concrete promise and cultivate the delightfully vague. " - Stuart ChaseMy opponent has used this clever marketing ploy as a tactic in his favor, for sure. This plan, as laid out by Pro, not only doesn't specify who is going to be telling these governments to spend on outdated media, but it will also not have a set formula for how much they can force a country to spend. My opponent stated that "the rate would probably be. .. " etc. However, this provides us no safety or assurance whatseover! A plan, when it is presented, must be clear, concise, and c. .. .c. .. . (oh whatever) a darn good one! But instead of following this simple guideline, my opponent spent a great dela of his speech otulining a possibly good idea, with a crucially missing mandate. Why wouldn't he specify? The answer is linked back to my first disadvantage in C1. It would be too much for most countries to afford. If you think about all the different news sources in the United States/Europe alone, the numbers needed to match the request of the all-powerful NAE would likely go unmet. .. or leave the country bankrupt. There are SO many more objections I could raise to such a plan, but I will await my opponent's response due to character constraints. I will summarize my current arguments. -The Times financial trouble is the result of poor managment and a dying market. -Pro's plan promotes outdated forms of news reporting-NAE is unchecked/unstoppable, AND uses taxpayer dollars-Plan impedes technological progress-Certain countries can't afford to subsidize news outlets-NAE not only controls the media, but how much governments must spend on certain outlets (due to vague plan)Thank you, and I await my opponent's response. Phew, that was close. .. . Orange you glad I posted this in time? ;DSources:[1]. http://adage.com...[2]http://www.people-press.org...[3]http://multimedia.journalism.berkeley.edu...[4]http://mashable.com...[5]http://www.indiana.edu...