4 ms·

Interesting cover: 'the advertising revenue would go to privates'. Aside of the obvious (private) joke, that simply sounds like bold-faced wealth redistributio

Interesting cover: 'the advertising revenue would go to privates'. Aside of the obvious (private) joke, that simply sounds like bold-faced wealth redistribution in the wrong direction: get the gov (at the expense of the taxpayer) to sub the movement of money to the private sector. Not that consumers really benefit financially either way. Still the rich get richer.

taurath 10y ago
To me, the question is: Does the public want an information service that isn't beholden to their advertising money, but instead beholden to their chosen representatives, and are they willing to pay for it? Thats the basis of pretty much all government services, and even government itself. Its not for their direct financial benefit, just as purchasing a cable subscription isn't to one's direct financial benefit. But its moving where the money goes towards something more accountable to the people.
- branchless 10y ago
  Exactly. It's a serious problem in the UK but I don't think the BBC is exempt. We have private papers like The Telegraph, whose chief political editor resigned due to pressure from advertisers: https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-... But the BBC is part of the establishment, regularly running property porn shows and glossing over the financial crisis. I have no solution, I just wanted to point out that national broadcasters are not "for the people" all the time. The BBC basically got beaten down by Blair who made the BBC chase ratings which was the perfect way to dumb it down and neuter it after they opposed the Iraq war. Having a "popular" national broadcaster is truly pointless because if they can compete on ratings they can derive their revenue from adverts. Just another thing in the UK that has been subtly eroded.
I-M-S 10y ago
Take a look at Chapter 3 of a well-researched Strategy CBC issued at http://future.cbc.ca/ http://future.cbc.ca/ - the whole advertising business model for traditional media is breaking down. Without government funding of content that matters, there's a risk of being left in the world where a handful of Silicon Valley corporations make billions in advertising profits from people sharing self-made fake news. These corporations are not subject to any policy frameworks many nations have, like mandatory quota of locally-produced content, nor are they obliged to pay any taxes to the country whose media landscape they disrupt. From here you can make an argument for redirecting the ad money to CBC's private Canadian competitors, as they are going to need all the help they can get to survive.

taurath 10y ago

To me, the question is: Does the public want an information service that isn't beholden to their advertising money, but instead beholden to their chosen representatives, and are they willing to pay for it? Thats the basis of pretty much all government services, and even government itself. Its not for their direct financial benefit, just as purchasing a cable subscription isn't to one's direct financial benefit. But its moving where the money goes towards something more accountable to the people.

branchless 10y ago
Exactly. It's a serious problem in the UK but I don't think the BBC is exempt. We have private papers like The Telegraph, whose chief political editor resigned due to pressure from advertisers: https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-... But the BBC is part of the establishment, regularly running property porn shows and glossing over the financial crisis. I have no solution, I just wanted to point out that national broadcasters are not "for the people" all the time. The BBC basically got beaten down by Blair who made the BBC chase ratings which was the perfect way to dumb it down and neuter it after they opposed the Iraq war. Having a "popular" national broadcaster is truly pointless because if they can compete on ratings they can derive their revenue from adverts. Just another thing in the UK that has been subtly eroded.

I-M-S 10y ago

Take a look at Chapter 3 of a well-researched Strategy CBC issued at http://future.cbc.ca/ http://future.cbc.ca/ - the whole advertising business model for traditional media is breaking down. Without government funding of content that matters, there's a risk of being left in the world where a handful of Silicon Valley corporations make billions in advertising profits from people sharing self-made fake news. These corporations are not subject to any policy frameworks many nations have, like mandatory quota of locally-produced content, nor are they obliged to pay any taxes to the country whose media landscape they disrupt. From here you can make an argument for redirecting the ad money to CBC's private Canadian competitors, as they are going to need all the help they can get to survive.