One of the provisions under the 1st Amendment protects the freedom of press.  In theory, this means that the government cannot pressure, coerce or censor the press at anytime.  In other words, the government has to keep it's dirty mitts off the printing press.  Now, there are exceptions laid out to us via the Supreme Court for decency, obscenity, etc. 

It's no secret that the newspaper industry is hurting badly.  They're bleeding money faster than MC Hammer did.  The internet and 24 hour news channels have all but killed newspapers and magazines.  Why read about it tomorrow or next week when you can log onto the internet and read the story today.  If it wasn't for the comics and crossword section of newspapers, I might not read them all- joking of course.  As a result, there has been some talk in DC recently about possibly giving a bailout to the newspaper industry and there is pending legislation to do just that called S. 673.  This weekend, President Obama stated that he was not opposed to bailing out the newspaper industry (no surprise) if they re-organized as a 501(c)(3).

Oh the intrigue!  The kicker about 501(c)(3) organizations is they are non-profit and are not supposed to endorse one candidate over another.  Now we all know there are 501s on both sides that skirt the line between outright endorsement and just stating the "facts" as they see them.  Not much unlike what the mainstream media does now...

Here is the text from the IRS about 501(c)(3):

"To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues."

Which parts of this section this IRS code do you think the mainstream media violates now as a for-profit business?  As a 501(c)(3), donors would be needed, if the government doesn't provide the revenue, to operate.  What would be the difference between Moveon.org and a non-profit New York Times?  Not much in my opinion - both support the same things.  Both organizations spew ideology and favor leftist politics.  The only difference is the NY Times gets published and circulated all over the country whereas Moveon.org is read mainly by Hugo Chavez types.  What would stop a George Soros from donating a bunch of money in the name of "literary philanthropy" knowing all too well that he'd be influencing what the NY Times printed?  It puts the NY Times in a bit of a spot because if they don't listen to their benefactor, then what will they do when he pulls his future donations?  Sticky situation the government would be creating.  Very sticky.

Furthermore, the sad state of affairs in the print industry only proves one thing.  Liberal media can't make it in the market place.  Air America is broke or is struggling.  Liberal books don't sell - right Nancy Pelosi?  Liberal talk show hosts can't compete - Lisa Maddow, Chris Matthews, et. al.  As a result, the government wants to bailout the media with a cash infusion using our tax dollars and/or reinstitute a system like the Fairness Doctrine for radio and online.

There is a reason that the freedom of press is in the Bill of Rights.  King George III and Parliament in England could shut down newspapers or pamphleteers that spoke out against the government.  That's not to say that our Founding Fathers didn't use the media to attack each other and opposing policies.  However, they did know that the press should be free - without government interference.  It seems little by little our Constitution and Bill of Rights are being eroded into nothing more than a pleasant memory.