4 ms·

What does the EU have to do with this?

• alexeldeib 9y ago
  Seems intended to indicate a lack of influence from the Trump administration, and that this behavior is not unusual in other political bodies such as the EU.
• rayiner 9y ago
  Comparison to the EU shows that this is not an incongruous combination of decisions, as OP implies.
• richardknop 9y ago
  It shows that this is not a controversial decision at all and similar decision would be probably made in all western countries. Whether there is some Trump vendetta as driver for this decision is not very relevant if the decision is correct.
  • colde 9y ago
    But that is completely negating that the media markets in EU and the US are completely different. For instance, a number of european countries have a strong public broadcaster to provide a neutral source of news. PBS or NPR aren't really comparable in most cases. And in many cases, local stations aren't owned by a corporate entity, completely making such rules irrelevant.
    • TheCoreh 9y ago
      Isn't providing a "Neutral" source of news basically impossible? Even if you could somehow address all sides of a story (e.g. besides actual scientists let's also interview some flat earthers to allow them to explain how the Earth is flat) the mere fact that there's too much to report and the channel invariably needs to choose what goes on air mean that it's no longer neutral. Public channels are also funded by the government, so there can be institutional pressure to present the government actions in a good light. Even if there isn't, a change in public policy might mean less spending on the public channel, which might mean journalists lose their jobs, which is significant incentive to promote pro-status quo viewpoints on the channel.
      • zaarn 9y ago
        The german TV station Das Erste is quite good at being impartial and neutral. Reports are factual, there is little to no opinion and government issues are frequently included. Atleast in my experience they have been very good at keeping neutral.
      • croon 9y ago
        > Isn't providing a "Neutral" source of news basically impossible? Even if you could somehow address all sides of a story (e.g. besides actual scientists let's also interview some flat earthers to allow them to explain how the Earth is flat) the mere fact that there's too much to report and the channel invariably needs to choose what goes on air mean that it's no longer neutral. Giving air time to flat-earthers isn't neutral, it's pandering to idiots. Neutral is clear and factual reporting on issues, regardless of where on the political spectrum that lands you.