Does a state that shores up an ailing media form because of personal links and dresses it up as a "present for the children" not bother anyone a tiny bit? Newspapers are dead, get over it.
We have have a similar thing in Denmark, it's called "stamp-support" (due do the cost of distributing). The logic goes that print media still serves as feeder for stories that eventually gets published online and therefore newspapers should get special support.<p>I remain unconvinced.
This doesn't matter.<p>I have a "free" subscription to my local paper. In this case, this means my "free" subscription is tossed like so much litter on my driveway every few days and if I could stop it, I would. I certainly don't <i>read</i> it; it simply goes in the trash. About once a month, a headline catches my eye and I read it as far as I can without taking it out of the bag (too much work), <i>then</i> toss it.<p>Newspapers aren't dying because nobody can afford them... or lack access in any other way. This solves the wrong problem. 18yos are <i>very aware</i> of the state of newspapers and are unlikely to change their minds as the result of <i>more</i> information.
<i>In a speech to industry leaders, Sarkozy said it was legitimate for the state to consider the print media's economic situation.<p>"It is indeed its responsibility ... to make sure an independent, free and pluralistic press exists," he said.</i><p>...he then ate a baby and declared his responsibility to not corrupt children.
Related idea: maybe we should stop collecting sales tax on books.<p>TV and the internet are great but long-form books seem to play a special role in the development of 'human capital' -- competence, expertise, and civil values.