I believe all American industries should receive federal bailout money except for the news industry.

As a columnist, my opinion may seem hypocritical, but journalism must be held to a higher standard than other businesses. Companies such as AIG, General Motors and Caterpillar can take from the government because their main objective is to remain profitable. However, profits can never be the goal of journalism. Some writers involved with news reporting believe bailout money is the only solution, but those writers are only concerned about the death of print journalism. The industry as a whole does not need to be saved, and news reporting can still be profitable without government aid.

In her last editorial for the Los Angeles Times, columnist Rosa Brooks openly pleaded for newspapers to receive federal money. “I… can’t imagine anything more dangerous than a society in which the news industry has more or less collapsed,” Brooks wrote. “It’s time for a government bailout of journalism.”

Brooks, like others who work for newspapers, sees government money as a magic wand that can solve any problem. However, she does not acknowledge the ethical dilemma tied to federal money. By accepting a bailout check, news markets would be indebted to the government, and reporting would diminish in quality. The Obama administration was able to remove General Motors’ former chief Rick Wagoner because he did not move fast enough to restructure the corporation. Federal money leads to federal influence, and federal influence has no place in journalism.

Some writers actually think government aid is currently hindering the media.

In their article “The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers,” writers John Nichols and Robert McChesney claim “billions of dollars in direct and indirect subsidies” for media outlets caused journalism’s current decline. Because the news industry already receives billions of dollars in subsidies, bailout money has no guarantee in fixing the decline of newspapers. People writing for print journalism must accept that the industry is changing, and they need to change with it.

Currently, the amount of people who receive their news from the Internet is rapidly expanding.

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed 55 percent of Internet users went online for their news in 2008. That amount was up from 35 percent in 1998. If this trend continues, 75 percent of Internet users could be reading online news by 2018. Online journalism is here to stay, and it has the potential to survive without government aid.

The only obstacle for most online news sources is becoming distinct.

Pew Research shows The New York Times, which produces a respected print product, only captures 4 percent of people who read online news, but CNN, which does not produce a print product, receives 17 percent of the online market. Readers will continue to go online for news, and those who read print journalism will eventually switch to online news.

Instead of receiving federal money to remain in business, the news companies must develop their online products. A journalism bailout will only compromise the integrity of news reporting and invest taxpayer money into the outdated print medium. While it may be a hard truth to accept, times are changing and the news industry needs to change as well.