3 ms·
> Their money source is as protected from the government as it reasonably can be. Obviously false. > Really, the alternative is you have them beholden to bill
by msla 9y ago
> Their money source is as protected from the government as it reasonably can be.
Obviously false.
> Really, the alternative is you have them beholden to billionaire owners and advertisers.
Or have them run as a non-profit which doesn't accept advertising and instead takes donations from a huge variety of sources, including the people who watch it.
Don't pretend there are no other funding models.
Don't pretend the fact the government has a strong hand in their funding doesn't impact what they consider to be newsworthy.
- am1988 9y ago> Obviously false. Justify this. The funding is legislated into place in such a way that they are not subject to the whims of a new budget. Removing it would require actually changing the law, which ensures that a government trying to do so is subject to scrutiny. That seems about as good as you can reasonably expect. > Don't pretend there are no other funding models. I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth.
- msla 9y ago> That seems about as good as you can reasonably expect. ... assuming you want the news to be government-funded and, therefore, government-run. Some of us see a problem in that.