5 ms·

Ironically, I find government funded news - e.g., BBC and the PBS Newshour - some of my most reliable news sources. The advantage of publicly funded news organ

Ironically, I find government funded news - e.g., BBC and the PBS Newshour - some of my most reliable news sources. The advantage of publicly funded news organizations is that they don't have to chase ratings (and they obviously don't).

rorykoehler 11y ago
BBC is going downhill lately
- tonyedgecombe 11y ago
  Their budgets have been squeezed for years now, the result isn't that surprising.
- deepnet 11y ago
  BBC suffers increasingly from D-notices (secret bans) on stories. e.g. Unaoil scandal is glaringly absent from the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=unaoil http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=unaoil
  - ForHackernews 11y ago
    The BBC and every other mainstream media source, it seems. I had never heard of this, and the only "major" source I could find was a Reuters wire story (that seems to not have been picked up by other media): https://finance.yahoo.com/news/iraq-probe-claims-unaoil-corruption-122807385.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/iraq-probe-claims-unaoil-corr... Honestly, from reading that, it's not clear why this would be a story worth covering. Corruption in Iraq is like rain in Seattle: Depressing, but barely newsworthy.
    - deepnet 11y ago
      Yes D-notices are applied nationally in the UK. Unaoil is not intersting for Iraqi corruption but the foriegn offshore multinatinational beneficiaries. Deserving of a least a column inch - the obvious D-noting makes it a LOT more interesting from a UK perspective.
      - vidarh 11y ago
        Here it is covered in The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/01/authorities-monaco-raid-oil-firm-unaoil-hq-corruption-investigation http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/01/authorities-... Since D-notices are not legally binding, if The Guardian received one but chose to report anyway, I'd be very surprised if they didn't mention a D-notice - the times government have overstretched with respect to D-notices, it has usually caused a major stink.
        deepnet 11y ago
        Isn't The Guardian is now based in the US, since GCHQ ground up some of their computers ? http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-released-guardian-editors-snowden-hard-drives-gchq http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-relea...
        deepnet 11y ago
        Nice catch. Isn't The Guardian is now based in the US, since GCHQ ground up some of their computers ? http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-released-guardian-editors-snowden-hard-drives-gchq http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-relea...
        vidarh 11y ago
        No. The Guardian is wholly owned by a UK trust, and its head office remains in London. The only thing that changed was that reporting of the Snowden affair was shifted to their US office. The Guardian pointed out to GCHQ in advance that it made no difference as they already had copies of the data elsewhere. Furthermore, it was The Guardian itself who "ground up" their computers, as they refuse flat out a request to let GCHQ inspect the computers and do the destruction. Instead they agreed to destroy them in the presence of GCHQ staff, exactly because it didn't matter, and let them avoid legal liabilities. And frankly being able to put the story in the paper probably didn't hurt. From the article you linked: '"Three Guardian staff members – Johnson, executive director Sheila Fitzsimons and computer expert David Blishen – carried out the demolition of the Guardian's hard drives. It was hot, sweaty work. On the instructions of GCHQ, the trio bought angle-grinders, dremels – a drill with a revolving bit – and masks. The spy agency provided one piece of hi-tech equipment, a "degausser", which destroys magnetic fields, and erases data. It took three hours to smash up the computers. The journalists then fed the pieces into the degausser. Two GCHQ technical experts – "Ian" and "Chris" – recorded the process on their iPhones. Afterwards they headed back to GCHQ's doughnut-shaped HQ in Cheltenham carrying presents for family members, bought on their rare visit to the capital. "It was purely a symbolic act," Johnson said. "We knew that. GCHQ knew that. And the government knew that," He added: "It was the most surreal event I have witnessed in British journalism."'
- simonebrunozzi 11y ago
  Less than everybody else.
x5n1 11y ago
They are also not owned by billionaires with agendas or have to pay lip service to advertisers no matter what they do. News these days is but a joke and mostly simply public relations and propaganda, listening to it in my opinion opts you in to being coerced by other people's agenda. It's good if you are an idiot and need coercing to behave, but for people who can form their own opinions have no need for this.
colordrops 11y ago
While BBC is usually a decently produced news source, they still have levers than can be manipulated by the government. They were beating the war drum pretty hard in the run up to the war with Iraq after 9/11.
- paublyrne 11y ago
  The BBC is not government funded, it is funded by a compulsory licence fee, and is independent. They have come under government pressure in the form of having their budget effectively reduced by the government resulting in a shrinking news department. BBC news was not pro war in the run up to the Iraq war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier#The_45_minute_claim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier#The_45_minut...
  - noja 11y ago
    If someone controls your budget you are not independent.
    - smt88 11y ago
      That basically eliminates the concept of independence in media. As far as I know, all major media outlets are funded by some combination of government, corporate sponsors, and subscribers. I don't know of any profitable media outlet that does not have corporate sponsors.
      - tripzilch 11y ago
        > I don't know of any profitable media outlet that does not have corporate sponsors. 9 year-old girls, obviously.
    - SCdF 11y ago
      This is kind of an apathetic mid-90s defeatist attitude is I think easy but not particularly nuanced or helpful. With that attitude nothing is independent: money has to come from somewhere. I think it's fair to say that every organisation has some amount of independence, some have money structures that allow them to have more than some others, and the BBC is an example of a situation where they can be more independent than an organisation that is more directly government funded.

rorykoehler 11y ago

BBC is going downhill lately

tonyedgecombe 11y ago
Their budgets have been squeezed for years now, the result isn't that surprising.
deepnet 11y ago
BBC suffers increasingly from D-notices (secret bans) on stories. e.g. Unaoil scandal is glaringly absent from the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=unaoil http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=unaoil
- ForHackernews 11y ago
  The BBC and every other mainstream media source, it seems. I had never heard of this, and the only "major" source I could find was a Reuters wire story (that seems to not have been picked up by other media): https://finance.yahoo.com/news/iraq-probe-claims-unaoil-corruption-122807385.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/iraq-probe-claims-unaoil-corr... Honestly, from reading that, it's not clear why this would be a story worth covering. Corruption in Iraq is like rain in Seattle: Depressing, but barely newsworthy.
  - deepnet 11y ago
    Yes D-notices are applied nationally in the UK. Unaoil is not intersting for Iraqi corruption but the foriegn offshore multinatinational beneficiaries. Deserving of a least a column inch - the obvious D-noting makes it a LOT more interesting from a UK perspective.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      Here it is covered in The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/01/authorities-monaco-raid-oil-firm-unaoil-hq-corruption-investigation http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/01/authorities-... Since D-notices are not legally binding, if The Guardian received one but chose to report anyway, I'd be very surprised if they didn't mention a D-notice - the times government have overstretched with respect to D-notices, it has usually caused a major stink.
      - deepnet 11y ago
        Isn't The Guardian is now based in the US, since GCHQ ground up some of their computers ? http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-released-guardian-editors-snowden-hard-drives-gchq http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-relea...
      - deepnet 11y ago
        Nice catch. Isn't The Guardian is now based in the US, since GCHQ ground up some of their computers ? http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-released-guardian-editors-snowden-hard-drives-gchq http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-relea...
        vidarh 11y ago
        No. The Guardian is wholly owned by a UK trust, and its head office remains in London. The only thing that changed was that reporting of the Snowden affair was shifted to their US office. The Guardian pointed out to GCHQ in advance that it made no difference as they already had copies of the data elsewhere. Furthermore, it was The Guardian itself who "ground up" their computers, as they refuse flat out a request to let GCHQ inspect the computers and do the destruction. Instead they agreed to destroy them in the presence of GCHQ staff, exactly because it didn't matter, and let them avoid legal liabilities. And frankly being able to put the story in the paper probably didn't hurt. From the article you linked: '"Three Guardian staff members – Johnson, executive director Sheila Fitzsimons and computer expert David Blishen – carried out the demolition of the Guardian's hard drives. It was hot, sweaty work. On the instructions of GCHQ, the trio bought angle-grinders, dremels – a drill with a revolving bit – and masks. The spy agency provided one piece of hi-tech equipment, a "degausser", which destroys magnetic fields, and erases data. It took three hours to smash up the computers. The journalists then fed the pieces into the degausser. Two GCHQ technical experts – "Ian" and "Chris" – recorded the process on their iPhones. Afterwards they headed back to GCHQ's doughnut-shaped HQ in Cheltenham carrying presents for family members, bought on their rare visit to the capital. "It was purely a symbolic act," Johnson said. "We knew that. GCHQ knew that. And the government knew that," He added: "It was the most surreal event I have witnessed in British journalism."'
simonebrunozzi 11y ago
Less than everybody else.

x5n1 11y ago

They are also not owned by billionaires with agendas or have to pay lip service to advertisers no matter what they do. News these days is but a joke and mostly simply public relations and propaganda, listening to it in my opinion opts you in to being coerced by other people's agenda. It's good if you are an idiot and need coercing to behave, but for people who can form their own opinions have no need for this.

colordrops 11y ago

While BBC is usually a decently produced news source, they still have levers than can be manipulated by the government. They were beating the war drum pretty hard in the run up to the war with Iraq after 9/11.

paublyrne 11y ago
The BBC is not government funded, it is funded by a compulsory licence fee, and is independent. They have come under government pressure in the form of having their budget effectively reduced by the government resulting in a shrinking news department. BBC news was not pro war in the run up to the Iraq war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier#The_45_minute_claim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier#The_45_minut...
- noja 11y ago
  If someone controls your budget you are not independent.
  - smt88 11y ago
    That basically eliminates the concept of independence in media. As far as I know, all major media outlets are funded by some combination of government, corporate sponsors, and subscribers. I don't know of any profitable media outlet that does not have corporate sponsors.
    - tripzilch 11y ago
      > I don't know of any profitable media outlet that does not have corporate sponsors. 9 year-old girls, obviously.
  - SCdF 11y ago
    This is kind of an apathetic mid-90s defeatist attitude is I think easy but not particularly nuanced or helpful. With that attitude nothing is independent: money has to come from somewhere. I think it's fair to say that every organisation has some amount of independence, some have money structures that allow them to have more than some others, and the BBC is an example of a situation where they can be more independent than an organisation that is more directly government funded.