3 ms·

A big difference between the US media and the rest of the developed world seems to be a complete absence of state-owned/subsidized/run media. To me, this seems

A big difference between the US media and the rest of the developed world seems to be a complete absence of state-owned/subsidized/run media. To me, this seems much more problematic than the limited competition between corporate media. In the US, it seems that news/stories/investigative reporting without some commercial interest to some company tends to go underreported. There is no money in being critical towards business (except extreme cases) for the media companies, who depend on good corporate relations for advertising income. Critical reporting towards businesses is not happening and government mistrust is promoted with nothing to balance this. I think that a healthy media climate needs a mix of commercial and public journalism, that balance each other out. As someone living in the Netherlands, there are several popular TV shows on public TV that, I think, could never exist in the US, because they would be seen as harming corporate interest. An example being a program investigating the background, production and health aspects of all kinds of food.

elefanten 9y ago
We have NPR and PBS, but no large/official federal apparatus. I think a big part is the history of suspicion of government (part of America's founding myth, etc) but there's also always been a robust private media in the US. Lots of Founders, eg Ben Franklin, were publishers.
dredmorbius 9y ago
Whilst not state-owned, and only modestly state-supported, PBS, CPB, NPR, PRI, APM, and PRX produce programming and operate television and radio stations across the country. NPR's Morning Edition and All Things Considered news magazine programmes are the 2nd and 3rd highest rated radio programmes by listenership. (Rush Limbaugh comes in 1st.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_rad...
barrkel 9y ago
Culturally, many people would dismiss state-owned media perspective as a kind of Pravda. Because of the cultural perspective, two things would happen: firstly, politicians would think it's OK to instruct such media to follow a particular party line; and secondly, journalists and presenters that are the visible face of the media would also follow the party line, because they think that's where the money is coming from, so it would be stupid to do otherwise. The cultural perspective is widespread and it's at the core of many Americans' cynical approach to the government. "We're from the government and we're here to help" are genuinely scary words to these people; they have not bought into the idea of government as a social contract, or the idea that a consensus of principles could lead to publicly funded media without excessive political bias. Instead, many Americans view government as a necessary evil that we only institute to restrain our worst vices, and if the government shows up, it's because something went badly wrong; that the best government is no government, which we would have if we acted morally.
- andreasklinger 9y ago
  > two things would happen: firstly, politicians would think it's OK to instruct such media to follow a particular party line; and secondly, journalists and presenters that are the visible face of the media would also follow the party line, because they think that's where the money is coming from, so it would be stupid to do otherwise. In my experience the opposite is true. eg in Austria: * politicans aren't allowed to interfere w/ the state owned programming and it's usually deeply rooted opinion in those institutes to be independent - they are a service to the people of the country not the current government * private media are usually considered to be in favor of the party that pays them the most in ad spending and follows their own political agendas * state owned news shows are usually known to be more critical (we done the research, stop BSing please) towards politicians than private ones (which politicians obviously consider unfair) obviously in reality everything is shades of grey and not black/white. eg journalists still tend to have own political worldviews and report biased with them. but state owned doesn't by default mean propaganda channel.
  - barrkel 9y ago
    I know; but Americans don't, and a state owned channel would be run by Americans, viewed by Americans and judged by Americans. It would be American, ie be an instrumental tool of power.
- redy 9y ago
  This is not what Americans believe at all. This is what the corporate media wants you to think that this is what Americans believe. You have been propagandized -- you've taken a false consensus and turned this into a false conscious. This is exactly the danger of having such a concentrated corporate-controlled media. A bit more than half the country consistently votes for more government. The so-called "blue states" (really, urbanized states) consistently (and strangely) vote to increase their own taxes so that the government can be a bigger part of the environmental regulations, healthcare and education. As for the red states talk to these people. Many of these people only enjoy any kind of decent quality of life because of extraordinarily generous transfer payments... from the federal government. Cut off medicare, SSI, SSDI and whole towns would disappear. This is why when people actually saw Trump's budget they freaked the fuck out. Severe cuts in the federal budget would be beyond devastating to these states [1] and many of them know it. (This may be why so often politicians push for tax cuts but very rarely talk seriously about cutting spending.) But something interesting happens almost every second of day in the US. Though many people benefit enormously from the government's generosity the media reports purely on the "harm" caused by the government. The result is precisely this narrative "the best government is no government" -- parroted by a people who's devouring of government largess would put the Romans to shame. It's a farce but as you can see it's a very effective farce. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/05/23/heavy-cuts-to-rural-development-and-infrastructure-in-latest-trump-budget/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/05/2...
remotehack 9y ago
> A big difference between the US media and the rest of the developed world seems to be a complete absence of state-owned/subsidized/run media. PBS and NPR, both modern day liberal, fascist, so called, news hacks, loyal to the Democrats to a fault. > To me, this seems much more problematic than the limited competition between corporate media. The US is not China, that is a very, very good thing.
- dtech 9y ago
  You're literally contradicting yourself. Something cannot be both liberal and fascist (a philosophy characterized by authoritarianism and limited individual freedom)
  - KGIII 9y ago
    There are four points on the political compass. I'm not sure that I'd agree with their use of the word 'fascist,' however. Left - liberal. Right - conservative. Up - authoritarian. Down - libertarian. One can be in the upper left quadrant. I make no claims that they are and offer no opinion concerning NPR/PBS. Meh, it is eating my formatting.
    - pjc50 9y ago
      "Left" and "Liberal" are not at all the same thing.
  - weirdstuff 9y ago
    Wait, what's the contradiction? You can definitely have liberal fascism. Italy under Mussolini is considered by many scholars as a liberal, fascist regime. There's lots of scholarly work on the subject.
    - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
      What scholarly works are you referring to? I can only find one book and it is misusing "liberal" as a synonym for "left-wing". Left-wing authoritarianism is not inherently contradictory, but liberal authoritarianism is.
tentencircle 9y ago
What about Radio Free Asia and Radio Free Europe? Also all the other media organizations funded by the National Endowment for Democracy?
Clubber 9y ago
PBS?
ableton 9y ago
Netflix shows all kinds of stuff about how food and big business can be bad. Since they subsist on fees alone, and not on advertising, I guess they can be more free to show what people want. The good news is that with the internet, you are free to access whatever news source you want. I personally don't even have a TV subscription, because I can find what I want without annoying ads online anyways.

elefanten 9y ago

We have NPR and PBS, but no large/official federal apparatus. I think a big part is the history of suspicion of government (part of America's founding myth, etc) but there's also always been a robust private media in the US. Lots of Founders, eg Ben Franklin, were publishers.

dredmorbius 9y ago

Whilst not state-owned, and only modestly state-supported, PBS, CPB, NPR, PRI, APM, and PRX produce programming and operate television and radio stations across the country. NPR's Morning Edition and All Things Considered news magazine programmes are the 2nd and 3rd highest rated radio programmes by listenership. (Rush Limbaugh comes in 1st.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_rad...

barrkel 9y ago

Culturally, many people would dismiss state-owned media perspective as a kind of Pravda. Because of the cultural perspective, two things would happen: firstly, politicians would think it's OK to instruct such media to follow a particular party line; and secondly, journalists and presenters that are the visible face of the media would also follow the party line, because they think that's where the money is coming from, so it would be stupid to do otherwise. The cultural perspective is widespread and it's at the core of many Americans' cynical approach to the government. "We're from the government and we're here to help" are genuinely scary words to these people; they have not bought into the idea of government as a social contract, or the idea that a consensus of principles could lead to publicly funded media without excessive political bias. Instead, many Americans view government as a necessary evil that we only institute to restrain our worst vices, and if the government shows up, it's because something went badly wrong; that the best government is no government, which we would have if we acted morally.

andreasklinger 9y ago
> two things would happen: firstly, politicians would think it's OK to instruct such media to follow a particular party line; and secondly, journalists and presenters that are the visible face of the media would also follow the party line, because they think that's where the money is coming from, so it would be stupid to do otherwise. In my experience the opposite is true. eg in Austria: * politicans aren't allowed to interfere w/ the state owned programming and it's usually deeply rooted opinion in those institutes to be independent - they are a service to the people of the country not the current government * private media are usually considered to be in favor of the party that pays them the most in ad spending and follows their own political agendas * state owned news shows are usually known to be more critical (we done the research, stop BSing please) towards politicians than private ones (which politicians obviously consider unfair) obviously in reality everything is shades of grey and not black/white. eg journalists still tend to have own political worldviews and report biased with them. but state owned doesn't by default mean propaganda channel.
- barrkel 9y ago
  I know; but Americans don't, and a state owned channel would be run by Americans, viewed by Americans and judged by Americans. It would be American, ie be an instrumental tool of power.
redy 9y ago
This is not what Americans believe at all. This is what the corporate media wants you to think that this is what Americans believe. You have been propagandized -- you've taken a false consensus and turned this into a false conscious. This is exactly the danger of having such a concentrated corporate-controlled media. A bit more than half the country consistently votes for more government. The so-called "blue states" (really, urbanized states) consistently (and strangely) vote to increase their own taxes so that the government can be a bigger part of the environmental regulations, healthcare and education. As for the red states talk to these people. Many of these people only enjoy any kind of decent quality of life because of extraordinarily generous transfer payments... from the federal government. Cut off medicare, SSI, SSDI and whole towns would disappear. This is why when people actually saw Trump's budget they freaked the fuck out. Severe cuts in the federal budget would be beyond devastating to these states [1] and many of them know it. (This may be why so often politicians push for tax cuts but very rarely talk seriously about cutting spending.) But something interesting happens almost every second of day in the US. Though many people benefit enormously from the government's generosity the media reports purely on the "harm" caused by the government. The result is precisely this narrative "the best government is no government" -- parroted by a people who's devouring of government largess would put the Romans to shame. It's a farce but as you can see it's a very effective farce. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/05/23/heavy-cuts-to-rural-development-and-infrastructure-in-latest-trump-budget/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/05/2...

remotehack 9y ago

> A big difference between the US media and the rest of the developed world seems to be a complete absence of state-owned/subsidized/run media. PBS and NPR, both modern day liberal, fascist, so called, news hacks, loyal to the Democrats to a fault. > To me, this seems much more problematic than the limited competition between corporate media. The US is not China, that is a very, very good thing.

dtech 9y ago
You're literally contradicting yourself. Something cannot be both liberal and fascist (a philosophy characterized by authoritarianism and limited individual freedom)
- KGIII 9y ago
  There are four points on the political compass. I'm not sure that I'd agree with their use of the word 'fascist,' however. Left - liberal. Right - conservative. Up - authoritarian. Down - libertarian. One can be in the upper left quadrant. I make no claims that they are and offer no opinion concerning NPR/PBS. Meh, it is eating my formatting.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    "Left" and "Liberal" are not at all the same thing.
- weirdstuff 9y ago
  Wait, what's the contradiction? You can definitely have liberal fascism. Italy under Mussolini is considered by many scholars as a liberal, fascist regime. There's lots of scholarly work on the subject.
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    What scholarly works are you referring to? I can only find one book and it is misusing "liberal" as a synonym for "left-wing". Left-wing authoritarianism is not inherently contradictory, but liberal authoritarianism is.

tentencircle 9y ago

What about Radio Free Asia and Radio Free Europe? Also all the other media organizations funded by the National Endowment for Democracy?

Clubber 9y ago

PBS?

ableton 9y ago

Netflix shows all kinds of stuff about how food and big business can be bad. Since they subsist on fees alone, and not on advertising, I guess they can be more free to show what people want. The good news is that with the internet, you are free to access whatever news source you want. I personally don't even have a TV subscription, because I can find what I want without annoying ads online anyways.