621
Journalism Is a Public Good and Should Be Publicly Funded
(www.scientificamerican.com)
Good good. We're relearning things we figured out pretty definitively back in the 60s
This isn't what I thought living in the future was going to be like.
Elaborate, friend
If only we actually applied the "public good" principal, then government would also cover healthcare, dental care, eye care, cognitive-behavioral care, education, internet, phone, electricity, and gyms at least.
OIL and coal. Anything and everything oil related should absolutely not be allowed to be private or for-profit under any circumstances. I will take this to the grave for two simplified reasons:
- Oil, fuel and all related is too ingrained into our society that you can't escape it. Should not be profit driven.
- It's catastrophic effect on our habitat. Pollution, global warming, etc.
Amen
Amen
Thank god there are literally no possible consequences to the government running the entire economy.
But then they would have to report on the systems funding them. That's a bit too easy for corruption to take place in my opinion.
That's why you have multiple outlets within a public system, governed by a public institution chosen by those outlets instead of any government. Subsidize those outlets by subscribers regardless of political affiliation.
There are examples of this system or systems like it working, more or less, in various liberal democracies across the globe. And with across the globe I mean mainly within Europe.
It can be, and it's a valid point. But some countries do publicly fund their government broadcaster and have safeguards in place to maintain journalistic integrity. It can be done properly.
Australia is one: https://about.abc.net.au/who-we-are/the-abc-board/. The ABC regularly has fact checking articles for politicians on all sides and has exposed many a government scandal over the years.
Japan has a fee on any device capable of receiving a television signal (cost varies based on capabilities) used to fund the NHK and one reason was to keep the government influence out. Today, it still often has huge bias and avoids certain reporting and tows government lines. Sometimes translations over English or other languages completely changes what the people are really saying. NHK does produce some good programming, but they also are definitely up the ruling party's ass.
load more comments
(1 replies)
In Canada I fully want to keep CBC (Canadian broadcasting corporation). Guess which party wants to get rid of it.
Preach
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ehhh... I'm not so sure. If it's publicly funded, what incentive is there to investigate government corruption?
Would Watergate still have happened if Nixon had the ability to cut the WaPo purse strings?
if that funding were guaranteed and beyond the influence of those government officials, then they wouldn’t have any fear of revenge-based budget cuts.
this could be accomplished by putting control of the funding into the hands of multiple levels of committee oversight so that no one person or even a single committee could threaten it.
That's the problem, when it comes to government funding, nothing is guaranteed. :)
Witness:
That’s why I suggested multiple levels of oversight. Also, they kept their funding.
They did, because Mr. Rogers defended it. If he hadn't been there to step up it likely would have been cut.
That's the problem. You get one party in power who doesn't like it for some reason, it's gone.
What you’ve shown is the system -democracy - working as intended. I’m not sure how that’s a criticism.
That’s the problem. You get one party in power who doesn’t like it for some reason, it’s gone.
except your “evidence” proves the exact opposite.
load more comments
(4 replies)
this is why we protect the speech and the journalism.. it's like the whole vaccine argument all over again..
It depends entirely on how the funding arrangement is enshrined. Some mechanisms are easier to undo and some are practically impossible to undo.
So while you could say that nothing in our world is guaranteed, it’s going too far to say we shouldn’t have publicly funded media because any old president can just snap his fingers and make it all go away. That’s not the case.
And even if funding were easy to pull, that would mean no public media until someone else snaps their fingers and restores it.
Kinda like how Reagan removed the fairness doctrine... Oh, sure, any ol' President could have it restored... 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Obama, 2+ years of Biden... Hey, it's only been since 1987... 36 years... I'm sure it will be back any day now...
Thanks for sharing this.
load more comments
(1 replies)
this is why universities have endowments. and why they become convulted messes.
of course, they don't use them like they should, but that's another issue entirely.
sadly people are greedy and short sighted, no matter the institution. often the committees want to reward themselves above all else.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
Publicly funded doesn't mean government controlled, PBS and NPR only get about 10% of their budgets from the government. Most of it comes from Viewers like You! (Donations)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I’d at least like to see more non-profits and coops in the news business. Of course I’d like to see more of that in pretty much every business.
But then fuckwads like Musk will declare it "state run media" and sow distrust. Not that they trust any media not serving up confirmation bias...but anyway. It's a laudable ideal that right wing monkeys will fuck up.
For some reason state run media = bad, but media run by oligarchs who have proven themselves to be complete dickheads on multiple occasions = totally fine.
Rightly so. Publicly funded media is basically a propaganda outlet.
In india we have publicly funded news but most people say they are propaganda machinery for govt !
Not only that, it also puts control of the state media (or anyway, strong influence) in the hands of fuckwits like Trump.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I notice a fair number of people suggesting that it might give incentive to corrupt the public media outlet, or that it may be biased toward the government funding it... and yeah... that's probably true to one degree or another. But, that said, I think we all should take a moment and think honestly about bias in media. All media is biased, especially the ones that claim they're unbiased. Just because it's privately funded doesn't make it any less succeptible to corruption or bias. Indeed one of the biggest complains about our news is that the majority of media companies are owned and operated by, what is it, six(?) companies, and we know they all mislead people regularly on issues that affect them. Instead of focusing on removing bias from media, we should all be more diligent about being skeptical of the author's presentation of the media we consume regardless of funding source, and particularly when it is selling is info that we agree with and that angers us.
Yes, it's important to believe nothing and criticize everything. But in this day in age, I'd rather trust the publicly funded stuff than the privately funded media, due to the amount of scrutiny
Public service journalism is really good in the US and yes, it deserves public funding. It needs to be funded publicly. As a matter of fact, NPR and PBS are, in my opinion, the best news sources in the world. I've lived with public journalism in other countries. It's publicly funded, but its reporting often gets filtered by whatever party is in power. It's a shame more people don't realize what a national treasure the US has and does not appreciate it because, you know, taxes.
internet 'journalism' needs to be included in that, and it should cover platforms like lemmy
The way govts around the world are trying to curb good journalist , I feel the news shall be on a tor network , so that the govt cant mess with it ! But at the same time misinformation is also on the rise !
But public funding isn't the problem. The problem is that private funding is also allowed. And so the people with the most money control what is told to the other 99%.
And no, disallowing private funds for journalism that is also getting public funds isn't a solution either, because then they still have their 100% private "journalism". And banning those in general would be met with a lot of crying about press freedom.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
621 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19240 readers
2090 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS