5 ms·

> America is owed robust news organizations Americans would and should pay for this, collectively and without recourse, via a strong social safety net and poss

> America is owed robust news organizations Americans would and should pay for this, collectively and without recourse, via a strong social safety net and possibly taxes. Your shelter, your food, a high quality of life for your kids, etc. should all basically be provided for, so that people can take risks and be daring journalists without being guilt-tripped into feeling like they sacrificed their offspring to their ego. However, levying taxes to pay for things has been systematically demonized as just not an option at all, and by-and-large people have been hoodwinked into believing that more and more facets of society need to be mediated via "the free market", and if they fail that test, they are not deserving of existence. It'll take a while until people realize that the market is just a tool, not a be-all-and-end-all.

WalterBright 9y ago
There are countries that have taxation funded news organizations. They are hardly bastions of objective news. Like any organization, they serve whoever funds them - in this case, they serve the interests of the people that run the government.
- halter73 9y ago
  I think you're misreading the parent comment. They're not advocating for tax funded news organizations, but instead for a stronger social safety net. They're theorizing that this would enable people to pursue journalism without fear of losing their livelihoods because of struggles in that market sector. I'm not saying that I agree with this position. I think that without capital, the news industry would shrink and struggle even with a strong social safety net to support its journalists. Personal blogs cannot fully replace well funded news organizations.
  - RodericDay 9y ago
    I don't know why you're downvoted. This is a correct reading of my post. I'm more concerned with the family of a daring journalist being safe regardless of their investigations, than with the actual remuneration of the journalist.
- __s 9y ago
  CBC was pretty critical of the Conservatives while they ruled Granted it's a debated topic: http://cbcexposed.blogspot.ca/2017/07/is-cbc-news-biased.html http://cbcexposed.blogspot.ca/2017/07/is-cbc-news-biased.htm...
  - bch 9y ago
    > CBC was pretty critical of the Conservatives while they ruled That relationship was pretty combative from both sides, though, no? http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cbc-budget-cut-by-115m-over-3-years-1.1147096 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cbc-budget-cut-by-115m-over-... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cbc-funding-heritage-minister-1.3470198 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cbc-funding-h...
    - nl 9y ago
      That's the point. It undermines the idea that publicly funded news organisation follow the government line.
  - untog 9y ago
    Shouldn't "critical of the government" be the standard, though?
- noobermin 9y ago
  I'm not so sure. Has, say, npr, not always leaned left even during R administrations?
  - tomcam 9y ago
    Oh yes
  - AnOscelot 9y ago
    NPR consistently plays the middle ground. They're threading a needle. Their audience is largely left-of-center college-educated middle class & upper middle. Their public funding is at the mercy of Republicans. As a result, they're very centrist and will frequently pull their punches in controversial situations. Despite NPR's reputation, many on the left are increasingly distrustful and critical of them, while many listeners on the right seem to prefer their talk shows to be full of yelling. I'm not sure the relentlessly centrist strategy is working for them. And in some ways, it's unnecessary. Thanks to endowments and listener contributions, NPR could drop government money without major impact. Public funding is a small part of their budget.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - noobermin 9y ago
      I was somewhat skeptical, but here's[0] a chart of NPR funding sources. I really had no idea. Turns out corporations give them a lot of money too. [0] http://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances http://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding > "According to CPB, in 2009 11.3% of the aggregate revenues of all public radio broadcasting stations were funded from federal sources, principally through CPB; in 2012 10.9% of the revenues for Public Radio came from federal sources." It appears approximately 10% of NPR funding is from the US government. That's a decent chunk, but not enough to hold sway if it goes against the majority of their donors. Contrast that with a services like the BBC and RT which are almost all funded by taxpayer money: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Finances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Finances > "According to the BBC's 2013/14 Annual Report, its total income was £5 billion (£5.066 billion),[2] which can be broken down as follows: * £3.726 billion in licence fees collected from householders; * £1.023 billion from the BBC's commercial businesses; * £244.6 million from government grants, of which £238.5 million is from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the BBC World Service; * £72.1 million from other income, such as rental collections and royalties from overseas broadcasts of programming. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Budget "When it was established in 2005, ANO TV-Novosti invested $30 million in start-up costs to establish RT,[14] with a budget of $30 million for its first year of operation. Half of the network's budget came from the Russian government; the other half came from pro-Kremlin commercial banks at the government's request." "About 80 percent of RT's costs are incurred outside Russia, paying partner networks around $260 million for the distribution of its channels in 2014." "In 2015, RT was expected to receive 19 billion rubles ($307 million) from the Russian government in 2016."
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- barrkel 9y ago
  This is an American canard, but it's not really true. Usually, public broadcasting reflects the consensus of where the middle is, with a slant towards social justice, almost unavoidable when criticizing public policy - usually stories are about something the government isn't doing, or is doing wrong, rather than shouldn't be doing. If a public broadcaster publishes plainly biased stories, independent media can lambast them. But the shaming only has effect if the independent media is itself taken seriously; so the critique has to come from the middle ground. What you won't get from publicly funded news is a rounded perspective on what opposing camps think. The extremes are lopped off; you won't get small government conservative ideology, and you won't get communist ideology. Being anodyne and factual is the best defense against criticism from both independent media and political sources. If one's own position is significantly to one side of the political spectrum, naturally the middle looks like it's on the other side.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    There have been numerous attempts to defund public broadcasting by those who disagreed with their slant. They didn't have the votes, because most of those in power have the same views as PBS.
    - whatshisface 9y ago
      >Most of those in power have the same views as PBS. I wonder how that strange coincidence came about.
      - true_religion 9y ago
        It's not surprising. PBS is centrist, and most people in power gravitate towards centrist positions in order to win elections.
- am1988 9y ago
  Or they are funded via models which insulate them from the government of the day, allowing for them to report in a much less biased matter (they don't fear for their jobs).
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    > Or they are funded via models which insulate them from the government of the day Can't happen. Somebody is deciding to hand them money. That somebody's views are going to be catered too. Maybe not exactly, but close enough to keep the money flowing.
- nl 9y ago
  That's not true in Australia. Our national broadcaster is considered by the (conservative) government to be too left wing, yet it is too popular to defund.

WalterBright 9y ago

There are countries that have taxation funded news organizations. They are hardly bastions of objective news. Like any organization, they serve whoever funds them - in this case, they serve the interests of the people that run the government.

halter73 9y ago
I think you're misreading the parent comment. They're not advocating for tax funded news organizations, but instead for a stronger social safety net. They're theorizing that this would enable people to pursue journalism without fear of losing their livelihoods because of struggles in that market sector. I'm not saying that I agree with this position. I think that without capital, the news industry would shrink and struggle even with a strong social safety net to support its journalists. Personal blogs cannot fully replace well funded news organizations.
- RodericDay 9y ago
  I don't know why you're downvoted. This is a correct reading of my post. I'm more concerned with the family of a daring journalist being safe regardless of their investigations, than with the actual remuneration of the journalist.
__s 9y ago
CBC was pretty critical of the Conservatives while they ruled Granted it's a debated topic: http://cbcexposed.blogspot.ca/2017/07/is-cbc-news-biased.html http://cbcexposed.blogspot.ca/2017/07/is-cbc-news-biased.htm...
- bch 9y ago
  > CBC was pretty critical of the Conservatives while they ruled That relationship was pretty combative from both sides, though, no? http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cbc-budget-cut-by-115m-over-3-years-1.1147096 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cbc-budget-cut-by-115m-over-... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cbc-funding-heritage-minister-1.3470198 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cbc-funding-h...
  - nl 9y ago
    That's the point. It undermines the idea that publicly funded news organisation follow the government line.
- untog 9y ago
  Shouldn't "critical of the government" be the standard, though?
noobermin 9y ago
I'm not so sure. Has, say, npr, not always leaned left even during R administrations?
- tomcam 9y ago
  Oh yes
- AnOscelot 9y ago
  NPR consistently plays the middle ground. They're threading a needle. Their audience is largely left-of-center college-educated middle class & upper middle. Their public funding is at the mercy of Republicans. As a result, they're very centrist and will frequently pull their punches in controversial situations. Despite NPR's reputation, many on the left are increasingly distrustful and critical of them, while many listeners on the right seem to prefer their talk shows to be full of yelling. I'm not sure the relentlessly centrist strategy is working for them. And in some ways, it's unnecessary. Thanks to endowments and listener contributions, NPR could drop government money without major impact. Public funding is a small part of their budget.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - noobermin 9y ago
    I was somewhat skeptical, but here's[0] a chart of NPR funding sources. I really had no idea. Turns out corporations give them a lot of money too. [0] http://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances http://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding > "According to CPB, in 2009 11.3% of the aggregate revenues of all public radio broadcasting stations were funded from federal sources, principally through CPB; in 2012 10.9% of the revenues for Public Radio came from federal sources." It appears approximately 10% of NPR funding is from the US government. That's a decent chunk, but not enough to hold sway if it goes against the majority of their donors. Contrast that with a services like the BBC and RT which are almost all funded by taxpayer money: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Finances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Finances > "According to the BBC's 2013/14 Annual Report, its total income was £5 billion (£5.066 billion),[2] which can be broken down as follows: * £3.726 billion in licence fees collected from householders; * £1.023 billion from the BBC's commercial businesses; * £244.6 million from government grants, of which £238.5 million is from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the BBC World Service; * £72.1 million from other income, such as rental collections and royalties from overseas broadcasts of programming. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Budget "When it was established in 2005, ANO TV-Novosti invested $30 million in start-up costs to establish RT,[14] with a budget of $30 million for its first year of operation. Half of the network's budget came from the Russian government; the other half came from pro-Kremlin commercial banks at the government's request." "About 80 percent of RT's costs are incurred outside Russia, paying partner networks around $260 million for the distribution of its channels in 2014." "In 2015, RT was expected to receive 19 billion rubles ($307 million) from the Russian government in 2016."
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
barrkel 9y ago
This is an American canard, but it's not really true. Usually, public broadcasting reflects the consensus of where the middle is, with a slant towards social justice, almost unavoidable when criticizing public policy - usually stories are about something the government isn't doing, or is doing wrong, rather than shouldn't be doing. If a public broadcaster publishes plainly biased stories, independent media can lambast them. But the shaming only has effect if the independent media is itself taken seriously; so the critique has to come from the middle ground. What you won't get from publicly funded news is a rounded perspective on what opposing camps think. The extremes are lopped off; you won't get small government conservative ideology, and you won't get communist ideology. Being anodyne and factual is the best defense against criticism from both independent media and political sources. If one's own position is significantly to one side of the political spectrum, naturally the middle looks like it's on the other side.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  There have been numerous attempts to defund public broadcasting by those who disagreed with their slant. They didn't have the votes, because most of those in power have the same views as PBS.
  - whatshisface 9y ago
    >Most of those in power have the same views as PBS. I wonder how that strange coincidence came about.
    - true_religion 9y ago
      It's not surprising. PBS is centrist, and most people in power gravitate towards centrist positions in order to win elections.
am1988 9y ago
Or they are funded via models which insulate them from the government of the day, allowing for them to report in a much less biased matter (they don't fear for their jobs).
- WalterBright 9y ago
  > Or they are funded via models which insulate them from the government of the day Can't happen. Somebody is deciding to hand them money. That somebody's views are going to be catered too. Maybe not exactly, but close enough to keep the money flowing.
nl 9y ago
That's not true in Australia. Our national broadcaster is considered by the (conservative) government to be too left wing, yet it is too popular to defund.