3 ms·
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 represe
by 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 agoExactly. 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.