5 ms·

I keep beating the same drum but it's a worthwhile drum to beat: Why not publicly fund the news (like the BBC but without the license fees)? If such funding wo

I keep beating the same drum but it's a worthwhile drum to beat: Why not publicly fund the news (like the BBC but without the license fees)? If such funding would make you worry about the news becoming state TV, consider that your current options are (approximately) clickbait, MSNBC (blue state TV) and Fox (red state TV), or otherwise highly compromised and underfunded.

asperous 7y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR
- pbourke 7y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPublica https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPublica
- jakecopp 7y ago
  Could an American please explain whether NPR is popular domestically/your friend group or why not if it's a low percentage? I never hear about NPR from Australia, but the BBC is legendary. The Aussie ABC is the most trusted source of news in Australia: http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8064-abc-remains-most-trusted-media-201907220424 http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8064-abc-remains-most-trus...
  - garmaine 7y ago
    NPR is quite popular, and a reliable news source. It’s probably comparable to ABC or Canada’s CBC from what I understand. Certain people do claim it has a liberal bias, although like the BBC it is only slightly left of center, if anything. It does depend greatly on WHICH npr station and which shows you listen to though. The national shows are very high quality, but some local stations do broadcast all sorts of craziness aside from the national syndicated shows.
  - cpeterso 7y ago
    NPR is popular among liberals and reviled by conservatives, though its content is pretty neutral. In its attempt to share many sides of stories, NPR is accused by various groups of both liberal and conservative bias and pro- and anti-Israel bias. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR_controversies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR_controversies
  - bart_spoon 7y ago
    Its pretty popular. Probably not as big as the major news networks, but its big.
smackay 7y ago
Given that most democratic nations have a (relative) diversity of political parties and opinions in principle that seems like a reasonable idea. However unless you institute a strong system of oversight then the same problems with commercial outlets apply just on a grander scale. A state broadcaster can just as easily be co-opted to favour one political faction or another, if you get the right journalists into the organisation. Currently there is considerable disquiet in Scotland over the role that BBC Scotland plays in suppressing the idea the the country should be independent. The root of the problem appears to be that the Labour Party made a concerted effort to have pro Labour journalists employed at the organisation. As a result the output from the organisation is considerably pro-Union and against the current Scottish Government. You can take the following website with a pinch of salt if you like but it does give a good example of how a state broadcaster can be perceived as being actively against a given group or agenda despite the remit that they are supposed to be a neutral player, https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/ https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/ The current post is a great example.
- paganel 7y ago
  We have similar issues with our State-supported broadcaster here in Romania. Since a corrupt party came to power about 3 years ago (and also put its hands on said broadcaster) its programming has become really partisan (on behalf of said party and the latter’s world-view, of course). From what I’ve read online similar things have been happening in neighboring Hungary and Poland.
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    Yeah, state tv will reflect the quality of your state. But I doubt private media with comparable coverage does much better: if your state is corrupting state media it isn't likely to let significant private actors be.
    - paganel 7y ago
      > if your state is corrupting state media it isn't likely to let significant private actors be. Not necessarily. Yes, it can corrupt and control a big part of the private-owned media too but there are always a couple of outlets which are relatively free of direct State control. There are very few exceptions (like China, which for this reason also is truly a dictatorial State) but afaik even Russia still has some independent and relatively critic outlets towards Putin and his people.
scoopertrooper 7y ago
Like PBS?
TeMPOraL 7y ago
Here's one idea how such funding could work: have the first $50 spent on news subscription subtracted from your tax obligation (not base, but the tax amount). Rationale: this indirectly funds news from public money (which would otherwise go to taxes), while preserving the independence of press and market competition between publishers.
shrubble 7y ago
Is it the case, that the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's 1984 was based on his views of the BBC?
ConceptJunkie 7y ago
> Why not publicly fund the news (like the BBC but without the license fees)? There's nothing inherently more virtuous in financing something publicly than there is funding it through private enterprise. Who decides if publicly-funded news is objective? The politicians? This is how you get Pravda. Besides, isn't PBS already a thing?

asperous 7y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR

pbourke 7y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPublica https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPublica
jakecopp 7y ago
Could an American please explain whether NPR is popular domestically/your friend group or why not if it's a low percentage? I never hear about NPR from Australia, but the BBC is legendary. The Aussie ABC is the most trusted source of news in Australia: http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8064-abc-remains-most-trusted-media-201907220424 http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8064-abc-remains-most-trus...
- garmaine 7y ago
  NPR is quite popular, and a reliable news source. It’s probably comparable to ABC or Canada’s CBC from what I understand. Certain people do claim it has a liberal bias, although like the BBC it is only slightly left of center, if anything. It does depend greatly on WHICH npr station and which shows you listen to though. The national shows are very high quality, but some local stations do broadcast all sorts of craziness aside from the national syndicated shows.
- cpeterso 7y ago
  NPR is popular among liberals and reviled by conservatives, though its content is pretty neutral. In its attempt to share many sides of stories, NPR is accused by various groups of both liberal and conservative bias and pro- and anti-Israel bias. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR_controversies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR_controversies
- bart_spoon 7y ago
  Its pretty popular. Probably not as big as the major news networks, but its big.

smackay 7y ago

Given that most democratic nations have a (relative) diversity of political parties and opinions in principle that seems like a reasonable idea. However unless you institute a strong system of oversight then the same problems with commercial outlets apply just on a grander scale. A state broadcaster can just as easily be co-opted to favour one political faction or another, if you get the right journalists into the organisation. Currently there is considerable disquiet in Scotland over the role that BBC Scotland plays in suppressing the idea the the country should be independent. The root of the problem appears to be that the Labour Party made a concerted effort to have pro Labour journalists employed at the organisation. As a result the output from the organisation is considerably pro-Union and against the current Scottish Government. You can take the following website with a pinch of salt if you like but it does give a good example of how a state broadcaster can be perceived as being actively against a given group or agenda despite the remit that they are supposed to be a neutral player, https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/ https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/ The current post is a great example.

paganel 7y ago
We have similar issues with our State-supported broadcaster here in Romania. Since a corrupt party came to power about 3 years ago (and also put its hands on said broadcaster) its programming has become really partisan (on behalf of said party and the latter’s world-view, of course). From what I’ve read online similar things have been happening in neighboring Hungary and Poland.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  Yeah, state tv will reflect the quality of your state. But I doubt private media with comparable coverage does much better: if your state is corrupting state media it isn't likely to let significant private actors be.
  - paganel 7y ago
    > if your state is corrupting state media it isn't likely to let significant private actors be. Not necessarily. Yes, it can corrupt and control a big part of the private-owned media too but there are always a couple of outlets which are relatively free of direct State control. There are very few exceptions (like China, which for this reason also is truly a dictatorial State) but afaik even Russia still has some independent and relatively critic outlets towards Putin and his people.

scoopertrooper 7y ago

Like PBS?

TeMPOraL 7y ago

Here's one idea how such funding could work: have the first $50 spent on news subscription subtracted from your tax obligation (not base, but the tax amount). Rationale: this indirectly funds news from public money (which would otherwise go to taxes), while preserving the independence of press and market competition between publishers.

shrubble 7y ago

Is it the case, that the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's 1984 was based on his views of the BBC?

ConceptJunkie 7y ago

> Why not publicly fund the news (like the BBC but without the license fees)? There's nothing inherently more virtuous in financing something publicly than there is funding it through private enterprise. Who decides if publicly-funded news is objective? The politicians? This is how you get Pravda. Besides, isn't PBS already a thing?