6 ms·

It could be done with a new separate branch of government. It used to be there was good money to make doing it privately, but nowadays the system needs governm

by gutnor 7y ago

It could be done with a new separate branch of government. It used to be there was good money to make doing it privately, but nowadays the system needs government funding. Impartial and accessible (also meaning average Joe can understand it) information is as fundamental as the judiciary in order to maintain a working democracy. There are various element of it in various countries. Like national offices of statistic. There are stuff like the BBC and variety of EU initiative to inform about various processes. Democratic government keep complete record and have public service already make analysis and summary for ministers to work with. So it's not like it is out of the realm of the achievable. Maybe an official rating could be created based on a service like politifact that independant newspaper must display on their frontpage like the food safety rating for restaurants. Teach the kid at school that anything not rated is basically fiction and that will take care of the majority of the population. There is the risk of it becoming a propaganda arm of the government, sure, but you can have the same argument with every branch of the government. There is no intrinsic reason to trust the judiciary, the military or the police, except a tradition of being trustworthy which is really what maintain the whole system running: a lot of honest people everywhere. In any case, that's a moot point since the journalism it replaces is dying, and we know the new media that is killing it is not even pretending to have any kind of integrity.

verall 7y ago
It really does bring up though questions though, like when you look at the current administration and what they have done with the White House press office. Imagine if there existed a well-respected and trusted national news outfit that was suddenly being run by Sarah Huckabee Sanders. With the normal United States executive branch spoils system it would be a shitshow. It'd have to be like 4th branch of government or at least run separately like the Fed does.
- babyloneleven 7y ago
  It shouldn't be part of the Executive but its own branch, as independent as the judiciary
  - icelancer 7y ago
    > independent as the judiciary In theory or in practice, because what we have now (and what many would argue we have always had) is not very independent.
  - jaredklewis 7y ago
    How is it going to work? The judiciary is nominated by the executive, which I can’t see working well for this. Presidents from both parties would universally opt to staff the branch with journalists that were soft on government and politicians in general. Same problem if they get appointed by congress. As for elections, yea what could go wrong there? America is pretty level headed. We would never elect some kind of partisan maniac to an important position like this. All the branches of government are inherently political.
    - michaelt 7y ago
      Well, this is strictly theoretical. I can't imagine our politicians wanting to launch a news service, let alone an unbiased one. But if they did, one option would be to hire an editorial board from nationally esteemed people from outside the political system. You know, draw the membership from Nobel prize winning scientists and authors, Olympic medal winners, people like that. They would then hire and oversee journalists who knew how to journalism. If you're worried that would lead to olympic medals becoming politically biased, you could have the committee appoint their own replacements. "Entirely unbiased" may be impossible, but "relatively less biased than Fox News or The Guardian" sounds achievable.
      - ep103 7y ago
        Basically, we should fund PBS
        whenchamenia 7y ago
        He said unbiased. No matter the quality of reporting, NPR has a clear bias. As does BBC for that matter, even less obscured.
- twiceaday 7y ago
  What if the runner-up party in the election somehow ran it?
  - ian0 7y ago
    That would just change the bias, not remove it
    - twiceaday 7y ago
      You can never remove it, and this change seems better than allowing propaganda.
  - ufmace 7y ago
    That already happened - just turn on CNN.
Aloha 7y ago
You can't have the government report on the government and expect full independence - even if it is independent of the executive, you still need to fund it somehow, which is going to make it beholden to someone. Both the BBC and CBC have a history of government influence in their reporting - this is not a civil society function I can trust to government.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  > Both the BBC and CBC have a history of government influence in their reporting Citation absolutely required. The BBC have always sought to be impartial - which brings its own, occasionally absurd, biases. Their charter has always required they separate from government and impartial. They've managed to piss off almost every government, of every colour, in almost equal measure.
  - Aromasin 7y ago
    They have a wonderful knack of appearing biased to Labour or Conservative, depending on whether you're Conservative or Labour supporter.
- door5 7y ago
  >You can't have the government report on the government and expect full independence - even if it is independent of the executive, you still need to fund it somehow, which is going to make it beholden to someone. And private media, controlled by unaccountable billionaire capitalists and funded by corporate advertising, can be trusted? With publicly funded media, there can be far more scrutiny, openness and criticism. I mean, look at the UK and compare the BBC, which has its flaws, to the absolutely repulsive, dishonest and dogmatically right-wing private press.
  - zby 7y ago
    At least the private media would compete between themselves.
    - 7y ago
raxxorrax 7y ago
In Germany we have pseudo-governmental news stations. They work to a degree but you will only get "safe" news with influence from political parties.* The quality is mostly good, but it isn't sufficient to be really informed. The services for rating accuracy of news isn't really a solution in my opinion, since they only shift the problem, even if they slow down the news cycle a little bit. They will also be wrong at some point, like any news outlet. You cannot really have free independant journalism and put heaps of regulations upon them. > There is the risk of it becoming a propaganda arm of the government It is inevitable. If there are honest people everywhere, we can keep governmental involvement to a minimum. The real problem is monetization and education. Even renowned outlets use clickbait in this day and age. I also do think that a lot of "new media" will vanish again. edit: They also tend to develop into expensive behemoths which quickly develop their own interests. * which includes classical censorship.
- noir_lord 7y ago
  Largely the same with the BBC in the UK. Lots of people scream they are pro-left/pro-right (often without evidence) but I think if you look at their history what they are is pro-whoever is in power. They know who writes the cheques.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    True, I do think they make a real effort to stay neutral, but they are always very tame and if in doubt, they side with the government. Merkel just plainly removed certain reports, not sure about the topic. That was what I meant with classical censorship.
    - Faark 7y ago
      > Merkel just plainly removed certain reports, not sure about the topic. Removing all political influence is hard. I also am certain there was a case of some politician calling an editor, but don't remember the details beyond the politician getting booted because of it. But that sounds like bullshit or at least highly exaggerated. I'd like a source on that.
grey-area 7y ago
A formalised fourth estate? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate
offbytwo 7y ago
> It could be done with a new separate branch of government. Ah, yes. Maybe we could call it The Ministry of Thought.
- munk-a 7y ago
  I think PBS has a nicer ring to it myself.

by gutnor 7y ago

verall 7y ago

It really does bring up though questions though, like when you look at the current administration and what they have done with the White House press office. Imagine if there existed a well-respected and trusted national news outfit that was suddenly being run by Sarah Huckabee Sanders. With the normal United States executive branch spoils system it would be a shitshow. It'd have to be like 4th branch of government or at least run separately like the Fed does.

babyloneleven 7y ago
It shouldn't be part of the Executive but its own branch, as independent as the judiciary
- icelancer 7y ago
  > independent as the judiciary In theory or in practice, because what we have now (and what many would argue we have always had) is not very independent.
- jaredklewis 7y ago
  How is it going to work? The judiciary is nominated by the executive, which I can’t see working well for this. Presidents from both parties would universally opt to staff the branch with journalists that were soft on government and politicians in general. Same problem if they get appointed by congress. As for elections, yea what could go wrong there? America is pretty level headed. We would never elect some kind of partisan maniac to an important position like this. All the branches of government are inherently political.
  - michaelt 7y ago
    Well, this is strictly theoretical. I can't imagine our politicians wanting to launch a news service, let alone an unbiased one. But if they did, one option would be to hire an editorial board from nationally esteemed people from outside the political system. You know, draw the membership from Nobel prize winning scientists and authors, Olympic medal winners, people like that. They would then hire and oversee journalists who knew how to journalism. If you're worried that would lead to olympic medals becoming politically biased, you could have the committee appoint their own replacements. "Entirely unbiased" may be impossible, but "relatively less biased than Fox News or The Guardian" sounds achievable.
    - ep103 7y ago
      Basically, we should fund PBS
      - whenchamenia 7y ago
        He said unbiased. No matter the quality of reporting, NPR has a clear bias. As does BBC for that matter, even less obscured.
twiceaday 7y ago
What if the runner-up party in the election somehow ran it?
- ian0 7y ago
  That would just change the bias, not remove it
  - twiceaday 7y ago
    You can never remove it, and this change seems better than allowing propaganda.
- ufmace 7y ago
  That already happened - just turn on CNN.

Aloha 7y ago

You can't have the government report on the government and expect full independence - even if it is independent of the executive, you still need to fund it somehow, which is going to make it beholden to someone. Both the BBC and CBC have a history of government influence in their reporting - this is not a civil society function I can trust to government.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
> Both the BBC and CBC have a history of government influence in their reporting Citation absolutely required. The BBC have always sought to be impartial - which brings its own, occasionally absurd, biases. Their charter has always required they separate from government and impartial. They've managed to piss off almost every government, of every colour, in almost equal measure.
- Aromasin 7y ago
  They have a wonderful knack of appearing biased to Labour or Conservative, depending on whether you're Conservative or Labour supporter.
door5 7y ago
>You can't have the government report on the government and expect full independence - even if it is independent of the executive, you still need to fund it somehow, which is going to make it beholden to someone. And private media, controlled by unaccountable billionaire capitalists and funded by corporate advertising, can be trusted? With publicly funded media, there can be far more scrutiny, openness and criticism. I mean, look at the UK and compare the BBC, which has its flaws, to the absolutely repulsive, dishonest and dogmatically right-wing private press.
- zby 7y ago
  At least the private media would compete between themselves.
  - 7y ago

raxxorrax 7y ago

In Germany we have pseudo-governmental news stations. They work to a degree but you will only get "safe" news with influence from political parties.* The quality is mostly good, but it isn't sufficient to be really informed. The services for rating accuracy of news isn't really a solution in my opinion, since they only shift the problem, even if they slow down the news cycle a little bit. They will also be wrong at some point, like any news outlet. You cannot really have free independant journalism and put heaps of regulations upon them. > There is the risk of it becoming a propaganda arm of the government It is inevitable. If there are honest people everywhere, we can keep governmental involvement to a minimum. The real problem is monetization and education. Even renowned outlets use clickbait in this day and age. I also do think that a lot of "new media" will vanish again. edit: They also tend to develop into expensive behemoths which quickly develop their own interests. * which includes classical censorship.

noir_lord 7y ago
Largely the same with the BBC in the UK. Lots of people scream they are pro-left/pro-right (often without evidence) but I think if you look at their history what they are is pro-whoever is in power. They know who writes the cheques.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  True, I do think they make a real effort to stay neutral, but they are always very tame and if in doubt, they side with the government. Merkel just plainly removed certain reports, not sure about the topic. That was what I meant with classical censorship.
  - Faark 7y ago
    > Merkel just plainly removed certain reports, not sure about the topic. Removing all political influence is hard. I also am certain there was a case of some politician calling an editor, but don't remember the details beyond the politician getting booted because of it. But that sounds like bullshit or at least highly exaggerated. I'd like a source on that.

grey-area 7y ago

A formalised fourth estate? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate

offbytwo 7y ago

> It could be done with a new separate branch of government. Ah, yes. Maybe we could call it The Ministry of Thought.

munk-a 7y ago
I think PBS has a nicer ring to it myself.