The Rhino's John Hammer on unfair competition from Triad City Beat

"There is a new newspaper in town [Triad City Beat] and its offices are at the Nussbaum Center for Entrepreneurship, which means all of us here at the Rhino Times are paying to subsidize a competing newspaper.

The Greensboro City Council gave the Nussbaum Center $1.2 million last year.  So my tax dollars and the tax dollars of everyone who works in the media [as well as others in the media who are also subsidized] is being taken from us by force and given to our competition.

Forgive me if I don’t think that’s a level playing field.

It’s why incentives are such a bad idea."

Yet John Hammer endorsed Zack Matheny.

Yet Hammer didn't opine on the Wyndham deal.

Yet Hammer's boss Roy Carroll has been subsidized in the millions in incentives by the same taxpayers.


Either the Rhino's John Hammer doesn't understand the GPAC financing, or he's not telling the truth about a deal that would enrich Roy Carroll


The Rino's John Hammer Carrying Roy Carroll's GPAC position, and the local Republican establishment


The Rhino's John Hammer Trolling Congressional Candidates for Advertising Revenue; Bruce VonCannon Edition


Robbie Perkin's 9,000 acres, Project Haystack, "Incentives" and the Rhino Times


A comparison of Rhino Times articles with "Randall Kaplan" compared to the News & Record


Dear John Hammer and the Rhino Times, from the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics


Is this what John Hammer meant when he wrote "Matheny has voted for far too many giveaways."?


How far is John Hammer's head inserted into Roy Carroll's rectum? Using Straw Men against challangers


I believe the Rhino Times' John Hammer doesn't give a rat's ass about anything that doesn't have to do with the best interests of John Hammer


On taking a $1,000 contribution in 2009


It appears as though the Rhino Times' John Hammer is Financially Illiterate


The Rhino's John Hammer refuses to report on Downtown Greensboro's noise ordinance for the fourth straight week


1 comment:

W.E. Heasley said...


Apparently there are good economic incentives based upon taxpayer dollars and bad economic incentives based upon taxpayer dollars . The good and the bad being based upon pure self-interest.

If one receives taxpayer dollars or supports taxpayer dollars being bestowed on X, then those are ostensibly “good” as they serve the receiver’s or supporter’s self-interest. Conversely, if someone else receives taxpayer dollars, say a competitor or one does not support taxpayer dollars bestowed on Y, then those are ostensibly “bad” as they do not serve the non-receiver’s or non-supporter’s self-interest.

Which leads to an observation: Economic incentives based on taxpayer dollars are not the altruistic beneficence as it is politically framed, merely pure self-interest.