4 ms·

Given that most democratic nations have a (relative) diversity of political parties and opinions in principle that seems like a reasonable idea. However unless

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.
    - SiempreViernes 7y ago
      I mean, just empirically we can say that those free media aren't significant enough to drive public opinion which is why the regime tolerates them.
- Twixes 7y ago
  Yes, same thing in Poland, news coverage by state–owned media has gotten ridiculous really. Scandals hitting the ruling party are spun so that they are not their fault at all, yet the same outlets will take every chance to slam the opposition for anything. There's also constant criticism of Western Europe or the "LGBT ideology" (the "ideology" bit being just a trick to bash LGBT people less obviously).
mellosouls 7y ago
The BBC has always had to fight accusations of bias from disgruntled political parties not getting their way. The SNP is no exception to this unfortunate bullying trend - highlighted in the propaganda site in your link. It's not perfect as a broadcaster and has a natural London bias that affects all regions. I acknowledge this may become problematic in the context of regionalist independence campaigns. OT (for others reading this comment who may be unaware): the fabled founding father of the BBCs mission as a public service broadcaster, Sir John Reith, was a Scot.
Jarwain 7y ago
Well wasn't that the problem that the FCC's Fairness Doctrine was supposed to resolve?
- ConceptJunkie 7y ago
  The Fairness Doctrine only works if there are a small number of diametrically opposed viewpoints on every issue, but there aren't. The Fairness Doctrine also existed under the assumption that media bandwidth was seriously limited (i.e., as it was in 1949 due to technical limitations that no longer exist). The Fairness Doctrine also suffers from the same problem every other regulatory solution has: Who determines what is fair? There really is no objective way to enforce it.

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.
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    I mean, just empirically we can say that those free media aren't significant enough to drive public opinion which is why the regime tolerates them.
Twixes 7y ago
Yes, same thing in Poland, news coverage by state–owned media has gotten ridiculous really. Scandals hitting the ruling party are spun so that they are not their fault at all, yet the same outlets will take every chance to slam the opposition for anything. There's also constant criticism of Western Europe or the "LGBT ideology" (the "ideology" bit being just a trick to bash LGBT people less obviously).

mellosouls 7y ago

The BBC has always had to fight accusations of bias from disgruntled political parties not getting their way. The SNP is no exception to this unfortunate bullying trend - highlighted in the propaganda site in your link. It's not perfect as a broadcaster and has a natural London bias that affects all regions. I acknowledge this may become problematic in the context of regionalist independence campaigns. OT (for others reading this comment who may be unaware): the fabled founding father of the BBCs mission as a public service broadcaster, Sir John Reith, was a Scot.

Jarwain 7y ago

Well wasn't that the problem that the FCC's Fairness Doctrine was supposed to resolve?

ConceptJunkie 7y ago
The Fairness Doctrine only works if there are a small number of diametrically opposed viewpoints on every issue, but there aren't. The Fairness Doctrine also existed under the assumption that media bandwidth was seriously limited (i.e., as it was in 1949 due to technical limitations that no longer exist). The Fairness Doctrine also suffers from the same problem every other regulatory solution has: Who determines what is fair? There really is no objective way to enforce it.