4 ms·

Why is Turkey so special? In many European countries, the media gets directly paid by the government so they don't go tits-up. This ostensibly secures a free p

Why is Turkey so special? In many European countries, the media gets directly paid by the government so they don't go tits-up. This ostensibly secures a free press. At the same time, wer zahlt, schafft an. In fact, if Turkey were doing this, they would probably be criticized for blatant corruption.

mola 7y ago
Well, there's a notion of intent. It is problematic of course, but right now I trust some Western European leaders comment to democracy and free press. Less so for ardogan. I don't trust him because of direct actions targeting political opposition.
- heartbeats 7y ago
  See, that's what I was getting at. I know Turkey is an authoritarian state, and you know Turkey is an authoritarian state, but it's still a bit of circular reasoning: 1. It's authoritarian because it hurts the free press. 2. It hurts the free press because it's Turkey doing it. 3. Turkey is doing it because they are authoritarian. And looking from the outside, I can't see a difference. The Western media, who are funded by the Western governments, praise the Western governments for their support of freedom and democracy. The third world media, who are funded by the third world governments, praise the third world governments for their support of tradition and family values, or whatever it is they do down there. My point is that it's absurd to call media free when they are getting paid by those who they are supposed to investigate. A better model, I think, would be this: 1. Each year, the government gives the media money. 2. If they wish to partake in this scheme, they have to put the money they get in a fund, which must be kept separate from the rest of their assets. 3. By law, they are prohibited from withdrawing more than say 5% of the assets each year, just as they must maintain a minimum share capital. 4. At registration, the government should give the various media corporations 20x the annual contribution for their such funds. 5. Upon liquidation, they must return the excess assets in the fund to the government. This would insulate them from short-term political decisions. Even after ten years of no funding, they would still have 60% of their assets plus whatever the return on the way they invested them in was.
  - Faark 7y ago
    If you want to solve this by designing systems: I found the Dutch [0] one quite interesting. The way I understand, citizens kind of vote for their preferred content providers with air time / resources distributed accordingly. But for me a critical aspect is their mission statement and whether they adhere to it. I expect the media in my country to be a check against politicians / the powerful. I understand having a system keeping this stable would be nice and being dependent on gov money has drawbacks, but just having such a culture is what I'd consider most important for the label free press. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_public_broadcasting_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_public_broadcasting_syst...
pergadad 7y ago
Name your favourite: - official funding with oversight, including democratic participation of all parties, as well as transparent rules (eg equal screen time). - private media without oversight, heavily favouring one party and in return getting kickbacks through eg state grants or contracts to related businesses.
- heartbeats 7y ago
  You're thinking of public service - I mean the grants given to otherwise unprofitable newspapers. So there's a third option: - private media without oversight, no requirements on democratic participation of all parties nor equal screen time, in return getting kickbacks by relatively transparent processes

mola 7y ago

Well, there's a notion of intent. It is problematic of course, but right now I trust some Western European leaders comment to democracy and free press. Less so for ardogan. I don't trust him because of direct actions targeting political opposition.

heartbeats 7y ago
See, that's what I was getting at. I know Turkey is an authoritarian state, and you know Turkey is an authoritarian state, but it's still a bit of circular reasoning: 1. It's authoritarian because it hurts the free press. 2. It hurts the free press because it's Turkey doing it. 3. Turkey is doing it because they are authoritarian. And looking from the outside, I can't see a difference. The Western media, who are funded by the Western governments, praise the Western governments for their support of freedom and democracy. The third world media, who are funded by the third world governments, praise the third world governments for their support of tradition and family values, or whatever it is they do down there. My point is that it's absurd to call media free when they are getting paid by those who they are supposed to investigate. A better model, I think, would be this: 1. Each year, the government gives the media money. 2. If they wish to partake in this scheme, they have to put the money they get in a fund, which must be kept separate from the rest of their assets. 3. By law, they are prohibited from withdrawing more than say 5% of the assets each year, just as they must maintain a minimum share capital. 4. At registration, the government should give the various media corporations 20x the annual contribution for their such funds. 5. Upon liquidation, they must return the excess assets in the fund to the government. This would insulate them from short-term political decisions. Even after ten years of no funding, they would still have 60% of their assets plus whatever the return on the way they invested them in was.
- Faark 7y ago
  If you want to solve this by designing systems: I found the Dutch [0] one quite interesting. The way I understand, citizens kind of vote for their preferred content providers with air time / resources distributed accordingly. But for me a critical aspect is their mission statement and whether they adhere to it. I expect the media in my country to be a check against politicians / the powerful. I understand having a system keeping this stable would be nice and being dependent on gov money has drawbacks, but just having such a culture is what I'd consider most important for the label free press. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_public_broadcasting_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_public_broadcasting_syst...

pergadad 7y ago

Name your favourite: - official funding with oversight, including democratic participation of all parties, as well as transparent rules (eg equal screen time). - private media without oversight, heavily favouring one party and in return getting kickbacks through eg state grants or contracts to related businesses.

heartbeats 7y ago
You're thinking of public service - I mean the grants given to otherwise unprofitable newspapers. So there's a third option: - private media without oversight, no requirements on democratic participation of all parties nor equal screen time, in return getting kickbacks by relatively transparent processes