| ▲ | DonnyV 4 hours ago |
| Its almost like we should just publicly fund it from the tax people already pay. |
|
| ▲ | Xelbair 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It fact you absolutely shouldn't as this put them in huge conflict of interest. how will you investigate corruption if your funding can be cut? |
| |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >? how will you investigate corruption if your funding can be cut? Don't make it possible for the current administration to cut the funding of the public media? Plenty of examples out there in the world where those currently in power can't just cut funding to major institutions, I think that's the norm rather than the exception in fact. | | |
| ▲ | Xelbair 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Don't make it possible for the current administration to cut the funding of the public media? Surely laws are immutable system and cannot be changed ever. It is always perfectly designed without loopholes, and especially so when ones who design the system could benefit from them. | | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Absolutely not, no one claimed so either, and frankly, why continue discussing with you when you don't seem to be curious about a honest and straightforward conversation? Screw that noise. Normally, in democratic countries, you have a process for changing laws. Enshrine your public media in those, or even better, in the constitution, and you've pretty much protected it short-term at least. Add in foundations or whatever concepts your country have, to add more layers of indirection, and it's even more protected. | | |
| ▲ | Xelbair 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You can really see how well such system works by observing USA right now. Only way you could have any form of public financing of such endeavor without conflict of interest is to have multinational organization funded by every country. Or you end up with BBC. EDIT: to elaborate even further - you didn't even address the problem that ones designing this system would have to work against their own best interest. just wishy-washed that part away. | | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'd say the US is a pretty shit example, given it's run by corporations right now, and lacks a judicial arm of the government that actually enforces the country's own laws. But to each and their own. Again, with an open mind, go out and read about how publicly funded media works outside of the US (and UK, since you seemingly have a set mind about BBC too), and there is a whole rooster of different methods for funding these kind of things, yet letting them be independent. Some of these institutions are over 100 year old, yet still independent. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out how they made that work :) |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bjourne 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The same argument applies to ad-sponsored media too. In fact, have you noticed that it was a very long time since a major paper did an exposé of the very sleazy online casino business? I wonder why. |
|
|
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What issue from the listed above public funding would address? Public funding doesn’t prevent the entity to become bloated. |
| |
|
| ▲ | __MatrixMan__ 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I bet we could come up with a list of things we don't like about adtech, tax those behaviors, and give the proceeds to their local competitors. |
|
| ▲ | embedding-shape 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| That's a radical idea! Unfortunately, it gives a lot of ammo to the "anti-socialist" people who are vehemently against anything "public" funded by tax payers. Look at what's happening in the Nordics for example, where pretty much everyone supported public radio/TV at least when I was growing up, but nowadays a bunch of political parties are trying to have it removed/reduced. |
| |
| ▲ | iso1631 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | There's also issues when the watched are funding the watches. If the council funds the newspaper, then the newspaper reports badly on the council, then the council can reducing funding for the newspaper. You need it to be independent, so how can you fund it. Perhaps a separate precept on the council tax bill which is set separately (say by national government) The BBC funding model attempts to do this at a national level, but of course nowadays that's not sustainable - part of the failure of the old civic minded establishment in favour of the new edgy profit minded establishment | |
| ▲ | carlosjobim 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nordic public broadcasting is some of the lowest quality news media you can find. They're not a good example, unless the job of public service media is to only support one or two political parties at all cost (you know which ones). Edit: Just an example. The funniest thing they've been doing regularly for decades now is when they go out on the streets with a camera to ask random strangers - the common man - about what they think about some recent development, like "What do you think about Trump?". But the "random stranger" common man on the street is actually a politician from the journalist's own party who has dressed up and showed up on a pre-agreed place and time. | | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Nordic public broadcasting is some of the lowest quality news media you can find. Compared to what? Have you seen what qualifies as "news" in other parts of the world? > media is to only support one or two political parties at all cost I've seen news on Swedish public media that disparages all sides of the political spectrum, exactly what I expect from public media not taking sides. > But the "random stranger" common man on the street is actually a politician from the journalist's own party who has dressed up and showed up on a pre-agreed place and time. Cherry-picking in journalism has absolutely nothing to do with public media or not, and I'm not sure why you're bringing it up here. | | |
| ▲ | carlosjobim 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Compared to what? Have you seen what qualifies as "news" in other parts of the world? Even compared to non-government funded media in their own countries, just to start with. Or public broadcasters in other countries, such as the BBC or PBS. As for Swedish public media not taking sides, that is like saying Fox News doesn't take sides and isn't aligned with the Republican party. If you can convince yourself to believe that Swedish public media isn't politically aligned, then congratulations. > Cherry-picking in journalism has absolutely nothing to do with public media or not, and I'm not sure why you're bringing it up here. How do you not understand? When interviewing the "common man" out on the streets, you should do that, and not interview somebody who is a high level party functionary without telling people you are doing that. That's like Fox News interviewing "random strangers" on the streets, but it turns out to be JD Vance in a wig. | | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > As for Swedish public media not taking sides That's not what I said, I said that I've seen Swedish public media "disparages all sides of the political spectrum", which is way more realistic than "not taking sides". We all wish we can be perfectly impartial, but that's short of impossible, so the next best thing is that it pushes back no matter where it comes from. That's what I've seen, but I no longer live in Sweden, maybe this last decade it's been different than how it was when I lived up there. |
|
| |
| ▲ | bjourne 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Keep lying. | | |
|
|
