4 ms·

Culturally, many people would dismiss state-owned media perspective as a kind of Pravda. Because of the cultural perspective, two things would happen: firstly,

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...
Maarten88 9y ago
Most western european countries have public media that operate independently from the government. Many forms are possible: the British BBC single broadcaster model to the fragmented model of my country with many competing broadcasting associations. I think most models work out well enough. Of course, comparing to Pravda is a straw man argument: I was promoting a balance between (independent) public and commercial media
- barrkel 9y ago
  I'm Irish and live in the UK; I understand your perspective. I don't think the BBC would work in the US, though, for cultural reasons I tried to outline. The political economy is structured such that it would be fatally lopsided.
pjc50 9y ago
> many Americans view government as a necessary evil that we only institute to restrain our worst vices I'm tempted to say "Why do so many Americans hate America?" It seems like a sort of anti-national nationalism.
- tripzilch 9y ago
  Pretty sure it's the two-party system giving people a non-choice between options that really nobody wants. They've been calling it picking between the lesser of two evils for as long as I can remember. The real question is why they settle for this. Look at the recent elections, those two people were supposed to be the best candidate options for presidency from the entire population? Really none of the people in the entire nation were better suited for this job? ... on the other hand, the two-party system in the UK is not much better, but they still manage to have the publicly funded BBC. fortunately :)

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...

Maarten88 9y ago

Most western european countries have public media that operate independently from the government. Many forms are possible: the British BBC single broadcaster model to the fragmented model of my country with many competing broadcasting associations. I think most models work out well enough. Of course, comparing to Pravda is a straw man argument: I was promoting a balance between (independent) public and commercial media

barrkel 9y ago
I'm Irish and live in the UK; I understand your perspective. I don't think the BBC would work in the US, though, for cultural reasons I tried to outline. The political economy is structured such that it would be fatally lopsided.

pjc50 9y ago

> many Americans view government as a necessary evil that we only institute to restrain our worst vices I'm tempted to say "Why do so many Americans hate America?" It seems like a sort of anti-national nationalism.

tripzilch 9y ago
Pretty sure it's the two-party system giving people a non-choice between options that really nobody wants. They've been calling it picking between the lesser of two evils for as long as I can remember. The real question is why they settle for this. Look at the recent elections, those two people were supposed to be the best candidate options for presidency from the entire population? Really none of the people in the entire nation were better suited for this job? ... on the other hand, the two-party system in the UK is not much better, but they still manage to have the publicly funded BBC. fortunately :)