Beck, while weaving a grand, incoherent conspiracy theory about the Obama administration, Free Press and the mercilessly flogged dead horse that was the FCC's Fairness Doctrine, sounds a warning call about government involvement in the news industry threatening the independent media that allows him and Keith Olbermann to share their uncensored opinions with the world.

Valleywag also worries about news organizations getting a little too dependent on the government officials whose feet they are supposed to be holding to the fire, while pointing out the inconsistencies inherent to any policy framework to oversee the news media, a shape-shifting term that would be impossible to define at a time of profound technological transformation.

Which brings us back to the FTC's workshops, which the agency has chosen to call, "From Town Criers to Bloggers: How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?"

Critics object to the very idea. After TARP, the travails of the auto industry and the February stimulus, the word "bailout" has found its way into common parlance. This is to be expected, and there are very good reasons to worry about excessive government intervention in the private sector and runaway federal spending.

Unfortunately, this has also led to the reflexive tendency to apply the term to any government consideration of an imperiled industry, or simply one whose rules may not have kept up with the realities of the market.

Journalism, and the newspapers that create it, are no exception. From a policy perspective, the concern is that a robust news-gathering operation does not fit into the economic models born from the Internet and cable news. If one accepts the premise that quality local and investigative journalism is a civic good, this is a problem.

If you're one who believes that the bloggers, Becks, Olbermanns and others who are coming to dominate the discussion are enough, then there is no reason to fret over the decline of the legacy models.

By statute, the Federal Trade Commission is a consumer-protection agency. Its proper role in the journalism debate then would be to explore whether, in fact, a market failure has occurred, or if one is coming if no action taken.

The soberer voices in the debate agree that the model of the future is not clear, but they also leave out the loaded term "bailout" from their arguments.

That's because a bailout -- a large infusion of government money to save a failing industry -- is not on the table.

A limited antitrust exemption, a clarification of the tax code and reforms to copyright law are under consideration. They may not be good ideas, but they're also not bailouts.

Greater funding for public media is perhaps the closest we get to a bailout, but the term doesn't apply there, either. Boosting public funding for news organizations that are increasingly expected to do what the commercial market no longer can would be an incredibly political fight, much like the funding and oversight of the NEA. But that doesn't mean it's not worth having.

The FTC workshops, if anything, should be a forum for those ideas to be debated, as well as a showcase for all of the vibrant new media efforts that have sprung up without the aid of the federal government.

Just don't call it a bailout.