3 ms·
This is no solution, and the reason is obvious: such an outlet is beholden not to the tax payers whose dollars are being used, but to the government who allocat
by Fellshard 6y ago
This is no solution, and the reason is obvious: such an outlet is beholden not to the tax payers whose dollars are being used, but to the government who allocates those dollars. This puts an explicit limit on what they can say and criticize, and what their bias will be: the ones holding the purse strings. Even if a majority of tax payers discard it at that point, the institution would have no incentive to change its messaging.
This is very easily seen already in the existing public news and media organizations that have been formed.
- RGamma 6y ago> This is no solution, and the reason is obvious: such an outlet is beholden not to the tax payers whose dollars are being used, but to the government who allocates those dollars It's not an employer vs employee situation. In societies with rule of law you can endow public entities/broadcasters with rights that protect them from such influence. This, with a well-defined duty to inform and culture of journalistic integrity should go a long way.
- Fellshard 5y agoHaving rights is orthogonal to receiving funding. Whether it should be the case or not, it is within government power to withhold funding from a public entity if it, say, puts forth journalistic effort to uncover a majority party scandal. And that is unlikely to change in any other nation's context. As for journalistic integrity: take America as an example again, where integrity has been overridden across the board in favor of party line messaging. Very little journalistic work is now done, public or private. And indeed, again, the public entity would have even less incentive to poke the bees' nest that makes its honey.