Republicans have been trying to cut funding for PBS.

What’s your point? A press funded by the government is not going to go out of its way to bite the hand that feeds it.

microtonal a day ago | parent | next [-]

It functions fine in many countries though. E.g. a lot of European countries have public broadcasters paid by tax money and they sure do criticize and mock government.

Commercial broadcasters tend to lean towards entertainment (needs ad revenue), so news becomes entertainment too.

It works as long as the state and public believes in democracy, accountability, etc. It’s very vulnerable, but everything in democracy is. Democracy and free press can only work if the population also defends it, which is what is failing in the US. The majority of population does not want to defend democracy.

▲

master-lincoln a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Huh? You mentioned yourself that PBS and NPR did. So that proves your point invalid.

▲

raw_anon_1111 a day ago | parent [-]

So my point is invalid that you shouldn’t depend on government funding of media because if the government doesn’t like what you say they will remove funding when that’s exactly what they did?

But I think the hard on for PBS that conservatives have is that PBS admitted gay people exist.

Back in the 60s PBS was controversial partially because it showed black and white kids playing together on Sesane Street…

▲

master-lincoln a day ago | parent [-]

Well it worked for 80 years it seems and now that the USA does not have a democratically acting government anymore they want to get rid of the funding.

Press that does not need to be profitable is extremely valuable to a democracy as it can openly talk about any issues without a conflict of interest.

Good democracies have that funding and no meddling of politicians with the content enshrined in their constitution.

▲

raw_anon_1111 a day ago | parent [-]

So exactly when was the US a “good democracy”? 80 years ago segregation was still in the South based on a ruling by the Supreme Court “separate but equal”.

Even until the 80s it was legal to arrest a homosexual couple for having sex in their own home based on “sodomy” laws.

Today women are dying because doctors are afraid of performing medical necessary abortions to save their lives because they might go to jail

They have been trying to get rid of funding since at least 1969 when Mr. Rogers himself went before Congress to try to keep it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKy7ljRr0AA

It amazes me that anyone who knows anything about this country actually wants to give it more control of the media or any increased power .

▲

metabagel a day ago | parent [-]

Let's be clear that Democrats support democracy and the democratic process. Republicans support oligarchy and a new gilded age of robber barons.

If government actually funded news in the public interest, it would mean that Democrats were in charge. Sure, Republicans could always cut funding or pressure publicly funded news if they returned to power. It would be our job to make sure that didn't happen. Publicly funded media can't work under corrupt Republican administration.

But, it's also true that commercial media is being bent under pressure from the Trump administration. Republicans will try to break anything which they perceive as limiting their power. Your narrow focus on publicly funded media seems to miss that big picture.

	▲	raw_anon_1111 a day ago \| parent [-]
		Democrats don’t support “wrong speak” any more than Republicans - it’s just a different type of wrong speak. I a socially liberal Black guy who supports almost every type of equal rights imaginable would immediately get cancelled and liberals would try to de platform me once I speak out against the one bridge too far for me - biological men in women’s sports or other women only competitions.