Here's something to consider:
I was thinking today about how the government is strong-arming businesses it's bailed out. In the last week or so, we've seen the administration reach into the private sector to fire a CEO, issue an ultimatum to his successor, demand Chrysler merge with Fiat, work on legislation to give it the authority to limit compensation, make such compensation dependent on the company doing what the administration desires, and start calling the shots in terms of what types of products the company should make.
So then I see this -- a Democrat introducing legislation to bail out newspapers:
Now, take a step into the future and consider what could be at the end of this path. Suppose you were the editor of a major paper facing financial ruin (like say, the New York Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Rocky Mountain News, Chicago Sun-Times, etc), and you took bailout money to keep your paper afloat.
If you looked at how the government is treating businesses it bailed out, would you be inclined to print anything critical of the administration that might incur its anger? Or would you only print favorable comments?