Leigh proposal to levy broadband users to save the dead tree press

In the OMG category, from YouGovLabs:

As traditional print journalism continues to lose readers and revenue to the free internet news stream, journalist David Leigh has proposed a way to save UK newspapers.

Leigh has pitched the idea of a £2-a-month broadband levy, along the lines of the BBC TV licence fee, which he says could drive more than £500 million into the industry every year.

This £2-a-month levy, says Leigh, could be collected by ‘a freestanding agency, on the lines of the BBC licence fee’, and redistributed to news providers depending on how many UK readers they have.

In This Week’s Labs Debate, tell us would you support or oppose this idea, as a way of securing the financial future of UK news online?

Arkell v Pressdram.

11 comments for “Leigh proposal to levy broadband users to save the dead tree press

  1. September 30, 2012 at 9:14 am

    What the fucking fuckkity fuck!?! Fuck off! Oh, you said that already…

    Why would we want them saved? They don’t deserve it.

    BTW – no link. We should be popping over there to tell them just what we think of such a proposal to steal our money.

  2. graham wood
    September 30, 2012 at 10:27 am

    “journalist David Leigh has proposed a way to save UK newspapers.”

    The first question is: Why should anyone want to “save” UK newspapers? If they have degenerated into the third rate syncopated pap that they are, then let them go down the tube like other unsuccessful organisations – that is the law of supply and demand.

    Second question. Why should we be made to subsidise, by law through a levy, an MSM which the vast majority treats with contempt for the trash that it is? If the MSM wishes to compete with the Internet let it try, if it can, in producing and sustaining real debate about real issues instead of, for example, their mind numbing fixation with “celebs”, footie, and eternal triviata.

    Third: On the same basis our venal politicians suggest that there should be State financed political parties. What! Absolutely not!
    If they happen to be visibly corrupt, failing and useless, but want public subsidy, then let MPs pay for them out of their own pockets – BUT NOT OURS.
    Thats for a start.

    • September 30, 2012 at 7:28 pm

      “third rate syncopated pap”

      Excellent 😀

  3. ivan
    September 30, 2012 at 11:24 am

    This all an idea to prop up the Guardian so that they can swell their coffers in the Cayman Islands and push their leftist agenda for longer – maybe they should up the advertising rates for the BBC.

  4. September 30, 2012 at 11:52 am

    The Guardian, wrong about everything all the time.

    • September 30, 2012 at 12:39 pm

      At least they are consistent 😈

  5. Dave_G
    September 30, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    Anyone done an FoI to ascertain what % of the Guardians income comes directly from the BBC (including all the sits vac ads)?

  6. Tarka the Rotter
    September 30, 2012 at 6:30 pm

    Time to say no, isn’t it?

  7. Mark
    October 1, 2012 at 11:57 am

    This looks like it would turn into a government-funded charity lobbying the government.

  8. Watchman
    October 2, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    Since some newspapers are still profitiable, it seems someone needs to make the case that newspapers are actually in trouble before they can even try to make the case for this levy idea…

    Not that anyone, even at the Guardian, actually seems to agree with the idea – I think that even most Guardinistas are aware what happens when the state controls the media…

Comments are closed.