6 ms·

You don't see the potential problem if the only media that is able to exist is that which is state sponsored? You may be happy with the state sponsored options

You don't see the potential problem if the only media that is able to exist is that which is state sponsored? You may be happy with the state sponsored options now, but will that always be the case? Would you feel the same if you living in the Soviet Union or Germany circa 1940?

adventured 9y ago
How about Hungary 2020? Poland 2022? Strong emphasis that I'm not equating those to your examples. Rather, pointing out that even a subtle version of undesirable or extreme politics can lead to a similar concern. Given the wild political swing going on in about half of Europe, it's a legitimate concern today, no need to look back 80 years. Not to mention persistently growing censorship and criminalization of speech in more liberal countries such as France.
martin_bech 9y ago
How is CNN, Fox News and the sinclair group, working out for you guys? I trust state paid media in the EU, way more than any US news media. The reason why most EU countries have state paid media, is so that its non commercial, non partisan, and cant be bought. There are different principles in place, so government has no say, in what is broadcast/not broadcast. This also means that all political parties get the same amount of exposure etc.
- home_boi 9y ago
  I don't read news but I'm sure that GDPR would hurt the smaller, independent news websites or aggregators that people find reputable more than CNN, Fox News and sinclair group. The latter at least have TV advertising. Their website is just horizontal integration for them.
- davidcbc 9y ago
  CNN isn't great journalism, but it isn't the only source of information. The problems with Fox News and Sinclair aren't based on advertising, they are based on ownership. State sponsored media isn't going to be any better under an autocrat and will in fact be worse than the situation in the US because there may not be any other options.
- username223 9y ago
  > How is CNN, Fox News and the sinclair group, working out for you guys? Not well, and I'd add MSNBC to that list, however much I may be a dirty pinko who agrees with their editorial stance. NPR and PRI do what they can, but I really wish we had something like the BBC here, with non-corporate funding and a remit to report current events.
  - beojan 9y ago
    You do have some very reputable newspapers though (NY Times, WSJ), which are subscription funded and hence losing out to the free ad funded stuff.
- saryant 9y ago
  New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe? Those are three publications that have sent shockwaves around the world with their privately-funded investigative journalism.
  - beojan 9y ago
    Absolutely, and they would benefit from the end of ad supported, low quality but free online news. All three are subscription funded.
    - saryant 9y ago
      40% of NYT's revenue comes from ads. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/new-york-times-company-earnings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/new-york-times-c...
      - beojan 9y ago
        That article is literally about 60% of their revenue being from subscriptions.
  - ItsMe000001 9y ago
    I used to like WP but especially since Trump they've almost become a single-issue publication following every fart of that guy, and a lot of it is way overblown and they leave out "details" and overstate the importance of others. I loved their investigative series such as the one about asset forfeiture, lots of investigation; the Trump reporting instead is more "instigation" than "investigation". And I can't open the comment section any more, it's like the Fox News comment section only the opposite. What I dislike about all news sites is that they are inconsequential. They throw sooooo many different news items at you that it really does not matter. Today's outrage will be quite forgotten two days later, or two weeks if it was something really bad. They should instead follow a few selected topics long-term and investigate what happens, and point readers to ways to affect a change. That means not reporting on each and every little thing as extensively any more but instead focus on a few things over a very long time. Just being fed thousands of news stories is McNews - you get short term satisfaction and a feeling that you stuffed something into your brain, but it feels hollow quickly because it's not very nutritious. And don't get me started on all the Russia hype, one would think those guys in their in large parts poor 3rd world country have capabilities far beyond what the orders of magnitude richer West does not (I speak some Russian and was there a few times, also in Ukraine). That all the media jumped so willingly on this wagon is quite amazing. Note that I don't doubt they (Russian) did most of what is claimed, but when, for example, sums of money spent for the campaign are mentioned it's so little that it's obvious it could not have had a significant impact, at least not on the scale fitting the amount and the tone of the reporting. What is also missing is that they take the opportunity to talk about the many ways the US and the West has influenced internal politics of other countries. For controversial topics they usually try to give such views some room, but Russia seems so incredibly overblown and one-sided to me - so impossible, and it all looks like that recent video about Sinclair where they all say the exact same things and one can see not much effort went into that reporting. I don't know, it all feels very weird - and very wrong, like when you put on very strong glasses and the world looks weird.
Xylakant 9y ago
German public media is not state sponsored. It’s an independent entity which is paid for by public fees (not taxes, the money never goes through the governments coffers). There are some levers that could be used to exert some level of control, for example the height of the fee is set by a commission that is partly under government control and many ex-politicians get elected into high positions, but all in all, public media is fairly well removed from the governments control here. The constitutional court watches over this pretty well, too. The system has been set up in such a fashion exactly due to the experiences under the nazi rule. I’m currently more concerned about private media having an agenda that promotes the right.
- davidcbc 9y ago
  What protections are in place to prevent an internal takeover of the organization by a political party? Let's say the Roger Ailes of Germany finds his way to the top of German public media and uses that position to tilt coverage to be more favorable to his own party, what happens? If all your eggs are in one basket what happens when something goes wrong with that basket?
  - germanier 9y ago
    We have 12 public broadcasters that are independent of each other each with their own board (and on top working under the laws of different states ensuring that no one political institution has power over all them, the federal government is strictly barred of interfering by the constitution). 10 of those cooperate closely, share some resources, and produce a common TV station in addition to their own radio and TV stations. One is a radio broadcaster using resources of the others. The last one is a TV broadcaster that works separately. It's pretty inefficient but ensures that there is no single entity controlling everything.
- briandear 9y ago
  What is the difference between a tax and a mandatory fee? If government requires me to pay a fee, it’s a tax.
  - 9y ago
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
At least a determined propagandist would need to corrupt every state media in the EU, much harder than just one. None EU media would still exist. Several UK media outlets use paywalls already, presumably they too would remain.
philipps 9y ago
I don’t think ownership structure is the key factor. More important is robustness of institutions that protect freedom of expression and freedom of the press. The Nazi government had little patience for critical private media either.
guitarbill 9y ago
Ad supported publications aren't immune from this though, if anything they are just as susceptible. To get the most ad revenue they need to cater to the majority. See e.g. clickbait. For stable income, finding a group and catering to their opinions/narratives is also an option, and is also not independent news. See e.g. infowars. Finally, to get any ad revenue, they need ads. Unlikely many corporations will run ads on anything that is perceived even slightly controversial nowadays. See e.g. YouTube.
beojan 9y ago
Why would you only have state sponsored media? You also have private media that you pay for (newspapers).
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Newspapers are mostly paid for by advertising; having readers pay is mostly important because paid circulation is a signal of level of engagement that helps sell ads (though there are free papers that are entirely as supported, too.)
  - beojan 9y ago
    Perhaps in the past, or for local media, but the big newspapers (e.g NY Times) are primarily subscription funded now. Anyhow, newspaper advertising isn't personally targeted by tracking readers, so it's a lot more palatable.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Perhaps in the past, or for local media, but the big newspapers (e.g NY Times) are primarily subscription funded now. That's a direct result of online advertising eating most of the advertising dollars, making the big papers less valuable advertising venues. Cutoff the things that make online advertising uniquely valuable, like the flow of personal data that enables far more focussed targeting, and that’ll shift back. > Anyhow, newspaper advertising isn't personally targeted by tracking readers No, instead it's targeted by every business decision of the paper ultimately being made against a backdrop of how it impacts the papers size and demographics of readership, which is how it sells itself as an advertising venue, which ends up with the major media all being crafted to narrowly appeal to the most valuable advertising audience.

adventured 9y ago

How about Hungary 2020? Poland 2022? Strong emphasis that I'm not equating those to your examples. Rather, pointing out that even a subtle version of undesirable or extreme politics can lead to a similar concern. Given the wild political swing going on in about half of Europe, it's a legitimate concern today, no need to look back 80 years. Not to mention persistently growing censorship and criminalization of speech in more liberal countries such as France.

martin_bech 9y ago

How is CNN, Fox News and the sinclair group, working out for you guys? I trust state paid media in the EU, way more than any US news media. The reason why most EU countries have state paid media, is so that its non commercial, non partisan, and cant be bought. There are different principles in place, so government has no say, in what is broadcast/not broadcast. This also means that all political parties get the same amount of exposure etc.

home_boi 9y ago
I don't read news but I'm sure that GDPR would hurt the smaller, independent news websites or aggregators that people find reputable more than CNN, Fox News and sinclair group. The latter at least have TV advertising. Their website is just horizontal integration for them.
davidcbc 9y ago
CNN isn't great journalism, but it isn't the only source of information. The problems with Fox News and Sinclair aren't based on advertising, they are based on ownership. State sponsored media isn't going to be any better under an autocrat and will in fact be worse than the situation in the US because there may not be any other options.
username223 9y ago
> How is CNN, Fox News and the sinclair group, working out for you guys? Not well, and I'd add MSNBC to that list, however much I may be a dirty pinko who agrees with their editorial stance. NPR and PRI do what they can, but I really wish we had something like the BBC here, with non-corporate funding and a remit to report current events.
- beojan 9y ago
  You do have some very reputable newspapers though (NY Times, WSJ), which are subscription funded and hence losing out to the free ad funded stuff.
saryant 9y ago
New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe? Those are three publications that have sent shockwaves around the world with their privately-funded investigative journalism.
- beojan 9y ago
  Absolutely, and they would benefit from the end of ad supported, low quality but free online news. All three are subscription funded.
  - saryant 9y ago
    40% of NYT's revenue comes from ads. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/new-york-times-company-earnings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/new-york-times-c...
    - beojan 9y ago
      That article is literally about 60% of their revenue being from subscriptions.
- ItsMe000001 9y ago
  I used to like WP but especially since Trump they've almost become a single-issue publication following every fart of that guy, and a lot of it is way overblown and they leave out "details" and overstate the importance of others. I loved their investigative series such as the one about asset forfeiture, lots of investigation; the Trump reporting instead is more "instigation" than "investigation". And I can't open the comment section any more, it's like the Fox News comment section only the opposite. What I dislike about all news sites is that they are inconsequential. They throw sooooo many different news items at you that it really does not matter. Today's outrage will be quite forgotten two days later, or two weeks if it was something really bad. They should instead follow a few selected topics long-term and investigate what happens, and point readers to ways to affect a change. That means not reporting on each and every little thing as extensively any more but instead focus on a few things over a very long time. Just being fed thousands of news stories is McNews - you get short term satisfaction and a feeling that you stuffed something into your brain, but it feels hollow quickly because it's not very nutritious. And don't get me started on all the Russia hype, one would think those guys in their in large parts poor 3rd world country have capabilities far beyond what the orders of magnitude richer West does not (I speak some Russian and was there a few times, also in Ukraine). That all the media jumped so willingly on this wagon is quite amazing. Note that I don't doubt they (Russian) did most of what is claimed, but when, for example, sums of money spent for the campaign are mentioned it's so little that it's obvious it could not have had a significant impact, at least not on the scale fitting the amount and the tone of the reporting. What is also missing is that they take the opportunity to talk about the many ways the US and the West has influenced internal politics of other countries. For controversial topics they usually try to give such views some room, but Russia seems so incredibly overblown and one-sided to me - so impossible, and it all looks like that recent video about Sinclair where they all say the exact same things and one can see not much effort went into that reporting. I don't know, it all feels very weird - and very wrong, like when you put on very strong glasses and the world looks weird.

Xylakant 9y ago

German public media is not state sponsored. It’s an independent entity which is paid for by public fees (not taxes, the money never goes through the governments coffers). There are some levers that could be used to exert some level of control, for example the height of the fee is set by a commission that is partly under government control and many ex-politicians get elected into high positions, but all in all, public media is fairly well removed from the governments control here. The constitutional court watches over this pretty well, too. The system has been set up in such a fashion exactly due to the experiences under the nazi rule. I’m currently more concerned about private media having an agenda that promotes the right.

davidcbc 9y ago
What protections are in place to prevent an internal takeover of the organization by a political party? Let's say the Roger Ailes of Germany finds his way to the top of German public media and uses that position to tilt coverage to be more favorable to his own party, what happens? If all your eggs are in one basket what happens when something goes wrong with that basket?
- germanier 9y ago
  We have 12 public broadcasters that are independent of each other each with their own board (and on top working under the laws of different states ensuring that no one political institution has power over all them, the federal government is strictly barred of interfering by the constitution). 10 of those cooperate closely, share some resources, and produce a common TV station in addition to their own radio and TV stations. One is a radio broadcaster using resources of the others. The last one is a TV broadcaster that works separately. It's pretty inefficient but ensures that there is no single entity controlling everything.
briandear 9y ago
What is the difference between a tax and a mandatory fee? If government requires me to pay a fee, it’s a tax.
- 9y ago

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

At least a determined propagandist would need to corrupt every state media in the EU, much harder than just one. None EU media would still exist. Several UK media outlets use paywalls already, presumably they too would remain.

philipps 9y ago

I don’t think ownership structure is the key factor. More important is robustness of institutions that protect freedom of expression and freedom of the press. The Nazi government had little patience for critical private media either.

guitarbill 9y ago

Ad supported publications aren't immune from this though, if anything they are just as susceptible. To get the most ad revenue they need to cater to the majority. See e.g. clickbait. For stable income, finding a group and catering to their opinions/narratives is also an option, and is also not independent news. See e.g. infowars. Finally, to get any ad revenue, they need ads. Unlikely many corporations will run ads on anything that is perceived even slightly controversial nowadays. See e.g. YouTube.

beojan 9y ago

Why would you only have state sponsored media? You also have private media that you pay for (newspapers).

dragonwriter 9y ago
Newspapers are mostly paid for by advertising; having readers pay is mostly important because paid circulation is a signal of level of engagement that helps sell ads (though there are free papers that are entirely as supported, too.)
- beojan 9y ago
  Perhaps in the past, or for local media, but the big newspapers (e.g NY Times) are primarily subscription funded now. Anyhow, newspaper advertising isn't personally targeted by tracking readers, so it's a lot more palatable.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Perhaps in the past, or for local media, but the big newspapers (e.g NY Times) are primarily subscription funded now. That's a direct result of online advertising eating most of the advertising dollars, making the big papers less valuable advertising venues. Cutoff the things that make online advertising uniquely valuable, like the flow of personal data that enables far more focussed targeting, and that’ll shift back. > Anyhow, newspaper advertising isn't personally targeted by tracking readers No, instead it's targeted by every business decision of the paper ultimately being made against a backdrop of how it impacts the papers size and demographics of readership, which is how it sells itself as an advertising venue, which ends up with the major media all being crafted to narrowly appeal to the most valuable advertising audience.