4 ms·

> I really don't understand why I should be forced to give money to corrupt organizations like FIFA and the IOC to hold sports events that I don't watch and ot

by audunw 6y ago

> I really don't understand why I should be forced to give money to corrupt organizations like FIFA and the IOC to hold sports events that I don't watch and otherwise don't have a stake in, State media has to broadcast some content that's actually popular, that most people want to watch, otherwise they'd soon lose political support. I hate it too, but fact is that these events are extremely popular, especially among people watching a lot of live TV. So I think it's a necessary evil unfortunately.

account42 6y ago
That's just admitting that the majority does not want the "independent" content of that state media.
gyulai 6y ago
> So I think it's a necessary evil unfortunately. I don't think its necessary at all. Why is it necessary? It's just something we have grown accustomed to in Europe, because of our big government way of doing things, where group A wants wealth transfers from group B, and if group A is a majority, they get their way. There are a lot of things where that makes sense: Group A, healthy and rich individuals, pay for health care for group B, sick individuals who can't afford health care. I'm on board because it would feel cruel and heartless to me to let them suffer. Group A, rich people regardless of whether they have children, pay for the education of children from group B, poor people with children, so that all children regardless of their background get to have a good education. I'm on board because I think that everyone should have access to the opportunities that come with a good education. Group A, everybody regardless of whether they use public roads, pay for road maintenance so that they can be used by group B, people who make a lot of use of public roads. I'm on board, because I think it would be bad for the country if it had regions that are only poorly accessible. ...in each of those cases, you can make counter-arguments. Those are just my opinions. Group A, everybody regardless of whether they like football, pay for group B, people who do like football, so that they can watch football. Hold on a sec... What the... What did I just say? ...that makes no sense! Why would I be on board with that? Now, as a taxpayer-licensepayer I'm just paying so that other people can get the things they like. That's clearly going too far. I just don't understand how so many people in Europe are no longer even weirded out by this stuff.
marcosdumay 6y ago
State media must focus on content that is useful to the society, not what is popular. Otherwise, why do you even need the state interference?
- SllX 6y ago
  You don’t, and it is a choice. State media does have some interesting trade offs for Europe specifically though. If a country doesn’t have that large of an addressable media market you might not get a lot of local language options without the state media.
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  > State media must focus on content that is useful to the society, not what is popular. It has to do both, because if you only focus on the "useful" you end up with a service nobody uses, and subsequently the use of it diminishes. It also denies the role of national events in the public eye as "useful" for societal cohesion, which is wrong.

by audunw 6y ago

account42 6y ago

That's just admitting that the majority does not want the "independent" content of that state media.

gyulai 6y ago

> So I think it's a necessary evil unfortunately. I don't think its necessary at all. Why is it necessary? It's just something we have grown accustomed to in Europe, because of our big government way of doing things, where group A wants wealth transfers from group B, and if group A is a majority, they get their way. There are a lot of things where that makes sense: Group A, healthy and rich individuals, pay for health care for group B, sick individuals who can't afford health care. I'm on board because it would feel cruel and heartless to me to let them suffer. Group A, rich people regardless of whether they have children, pay for the education of children from group B, poor people with children, so that all children regardless of their background get to have a good education. I'm on board because I think that everyone should have access to the opportunities that come with a good education. Group A, everybody regardless of whether they use public roads, pay for road maintenance so that they can be used by group B, people who make a lot of use of public roads. I'm on board, because I think it would be bad for the country if it had regions that are only poorly accessible. ...in each of those cases, you can make counter-arguments. Those are just my opinions. Group A, everybody regardless of whether they like football, pay for group B, people who do like football, so that they can watch football. Hold on a sec... What the... What did I just say? ...that makes no sense! Why would I be on board with that? Now, as a taxpayer-licensepayer I'm just paying so that other people can get the things they like. That's clearly going too far. I just don't understand how so many people in Europe are no longer even weirded out by this stuff.

marcosdumay 6y ago

State media must focus on content that is useful to the society, not what is popular. Otherwise, why do you even need the state interference?

SllX 6y ago
You don’t, and it is a choice. State media does have some interesting trade offs for Europe specifically though. If a country doesn’t have that large of an addressable media market you might not get a lot of local language options without the state media.
Mindwipe 6y ago
> State media must focus on content that is useful to the society, not what is popular. It has to do both, because if you only focus on the "useful" you end up with a service nobody uses, and subsequently the use of it diminishes. It also denies the role of national events in the public eye as "useful" for societal cohesion, which is wrong.