The NYT has an article today about the University of Alabama's efforts to prevent an artist from painting pictures of their football players. Its case includes a request to prohibit his use of the school's "famous crimson and white color scheme."
This is intellectual property rules gone crazy. It is also an extreme form of protectionism. Unfortunately, the NYT reporter never mentioned the economic angle here. If you impose a 10 percent tariffs on shoes, the Thomas Friedman crew start foaming. But, if you put an outright ban on a whole form of art (it ain't my bag, but people apparently buy it), they don't even think it's worth mentioning. If only we could require some minimal level of consistency among columnists (and economists).
There's too much at stake this November for us to quit. As we navigate another presidential election year, thoughtful independent journalism is more important than ever. We're committed to bringing you the latest news on what's really happening across the country this election season, shining a light on the stories corporate media overlooks and keeping the public informed about how power really works in America.
Quality reporting doesn't come for free, and we don't have corporate backers to rely on to fund our work. Everything we do is thanks to our incredible community of readers, who chip in a few dollars at a time to make what we do possible. This month, we're trying to raise $50,000 to help fuel our election coverage, and we've fallen behind on reaching our goal. Any amount you give today will bring us closer to making our reporting possible—and a generous donor has agreed to match all online donations, so your impact will be doubled.
