GLENN: There is — see if you find this interesting. There is a big rally being planned today by the, surprise, surprise, the socialists. Go to nycsocialist.org and you'll see, NYU, CCNY, and Columbia University all getting together today in Times Square and then to the Israeli embassy. This is not about — look, Code Pink doesn't care about your sexuality. They don't care about saving a damn soldier's life. The socialists don't care about the plight of the Palestinians. They care about a global socialist movement. That's what they care about. Period. You really think ACORN really cares about the plight of those people in the inner cities? If you really did, you wouldn't say, "Hey, don't worry about it; we can get you money even if you are running a prostitution ring." You would say prostitution is killing you! They don't care. It's about power and manipulation. And here is the biggest move that I have seen, and the media is not going to wake up. They are not going to wake up. They are either part of it or they're just so unbelievably inept, naive, stupid, and lazy. I mean, you take your pick. I can't — I can't figure them out anymore. The FTC, the Federal Trade Commission has been nosing around on how to save journalism. It just posted on Friday. If you want to bury something, you post a government document on Friday. It goes away and no one sees it. We watch Fridays. Any journalist worth his salt watches what the government does on a Friday, especially all weekend long, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, on a holiday weekend.
Here it is, the FTC defines journalism as what newspapers do and aligns itself with protecting the old power structure in media. The document will use the perspective of newspapers to exemplify the issues facing journalism as a whole, the FTC says. Newspapers have not found a new sustainable business model and there's reason for concern that such a business model may not emerge. Therefore — it is! It's called the Internet! Therefore it's not too soon to start considering policies that might encourage innovations to help journalism in the future. That is, to support newspaper survival.
If I may, I believe this is yet another prediction of mine that has come true. I told you they were going to save the newspapers.
Additional intellectual property rights to support claims against news aggregators, the document even takes on the language of Rupert Murdoch and company describing aggregators as parasitic. It espouses their perspective that search engines and aggregators use content. The FTC does not broach the concept of the link economy and the value of distribution created by aggregators. Let's see. They are looking now, the FTC looks at allowing news organizations to collude, to set prices with consumers and aggregators. Government subsidies, after saluting a history of government subsidies for the press, namely the postal discounts, legal notice publication, assorted tax breaks and funds for public broadcasting, the FTC now looks to other areas. A journalism AmeriCorps paying journalists. You have it? The government using AmeriCorps and paying them to become journalists. Increased funding for public broadcasting, a national fund for local news suggested in Columbia's report on journalism.
Oh, well, if Columbia says. A tax credit for employing journalists. Citizen news vouchers. In other words, you get a little voucher because you are going to be a little citizen journalist and you'll be licensed by the government. Grants to universities for reporting. It also looks at increasing the present postal subsidy which would only further bankrupt the dying postal service. Using the voice of America and radio for Europe content inside the U.S. Also there would be a new tax status. And if you were, if you were doing things that were good for the environment, for instance, if you had my opinion on global warming, you are going to have to pay a tier tax. But you would be — your taxes really would be decided by this community council and they are going to get together and they will listen to your content and if you're doing good for the community and you are doing good for the environment, you'll get tax breaks and subsidies. Otherwise, well, you can have that opinion. Isn't this what Cass Sunstein says? Isn't this what he meant when he talked about taxing opinions? Push them out of the square by taxing them? It's going to come down quickly, gang.