John Poirier of Reuters offers this (edited by Tim Dobbyn):

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, saying quality journalism was essential to U.S. democracy, said eventually government would have to help resolve the problems caused by a failing business model... Tweaks to the tax code to allow newspapers to spread losses over a greater number of years, providing a nonprofit structure to allow for public and foundation funding, and changes to antitrust laws are being considered by lawmakers and policymakers... [Waxman said] "Eventually government is going to have to be responsible to help and resolve these issues...

Most of the MSM usually acts as little more than the PR department for the Obama administration, so it would be fitting that the Democrats would like to help prop them up. However, if they want to make it on their own they should consider doing real journalism for a change, asking tough questions and holding politicians accountable. What Waxman is proposing would result in the MSM offering even worse coverage than they do now, at least from the perspective of bias, whether of the leftwing or simply of the establishment kind.

Poirier also says this:

Free Press, a public interest group, said the search for solutions to the crisis in journalism should be premised on the idea that news-gathering is a public service, not a commodity... Waxman's "indication that government has a role to play is both bold and soberly sensible," said Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott on the sidelines of the FTC conference.

I haven't been following these issues all that closely and even I know that Free Press is much more than just a "public interest group". They've received hundreds of thousands from George Soros ("The Plan To Silence Conservatives", link) and they were involved in "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio". For much more, see this, this, and this. The first has a Glenn Beck video where he discusses the various far-left statements of one of their co-founders.

To illustrate the problem, if Reuters relied on the Obama administration for direct or indirect payments, does anyone think it would be more likely for them to tell the whole truth about Free Press?