5 ms·

Why would the government fund news criticizing it, unless you had a different definition of publicly in mind?

throwaway277360 5y ago
Exactly. If the King paid for the newspaper, he would de-fund them if they reported news that went against the King. The fourth estate must remain independent.
- pietrovismara 5y ago
  The same exact statement is true for private ownership. The difference is that with public funding you can legislate to prevent governments to interfere with the news outlets. When they are privately owned on the other hand, you have no control over it.
spacemanmatt 5y ago
The public should not care why its government might not like to fund news criticizing it. Just governments tolerate and respond to criticism.
tata71 5y ago
propublica.org
- pietrovismara 5y ago
  The "about us"[0] page is a bit hidden but explains well the concept. - [0]: https://www.propublica.org/about/ https://www.propublica.org/about/
allendoerfer 5y ago
How do you think courts or parliaments are funded? The same argument applies here. Why should the fourth power be any different than the second or third?
- endisneigh 5y ago
  I’m not making an argument, I’m asking why would the government do this, now especially. Why not maintain the status quo?
- Ajedi32 5y ago
  Fair point, but consider that the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government is enforced by the constitution. Without a constitutional amendment, a fourth "public information" branch would have no such protection. Furthermore, consider that these days even the courts (which are supposed to be politically neutral) have become highly politicized. I can't think of any reason why a supposedly neutral fourth branch of government would be any better in that regard.
  - allendoerfer 5y ago
    I do not know for sure about the US constitution, but my constitution already has freedom of press in it. I guess the press would have to distribute the money by themselves, the government would just hand it over.
MichaelBurge 5y ago
The government funds a Supreme Court that rules to overturn its own legislation, often criticizing it in the process.
pietrovismara 5y ago
Why would private investors fund news criticizing them?
- jefftk 5y ago
  As long as you have many different news outlets owned by different investors this should be ok?
  - Miner49er 5y ago
    Except wealthy people still own the vast majority, so news will generally favor the wealthy.
  - pietrovismara 5y ago
    The problem is that the interests of the private investors converge. The best we can hope from them is to fight each other, but they won't ever attack the system that keeps them all rich.

Exactly. If the King paid for the newspaper, he would de-fund them if they reported news that went against the King. The fourth estate must remain independent.

pietrovismara 5y ago
The same exact statement is true for private ownership. The difference is that with public funding you can legislate to prevent governments to interfere with the news outlets. When they are privately owned on the other hand, you have no control over it.

spacemanmatt 5y ago

The public should not care why its government might not like to fund news criticizing it. Just governments tolerate and respond to criticism.

tata71 5y ago

propublica.org

pietrovismara 5y ago
The "about us"[0] page is a bit hidden but explains well the concept. - [0]: https://www.propublica.org/about/ https://www.propublica.org/about/

allendoerfer 5y ago

How do you think courts or parliaments are funded? The same argument applies here. Why should the fourth power be any different than the second or third?

endisneigh 5y ago
I’m not making an argument, I’m asking why would the government do this, now especially. Why not maintain the status quo?
Ajedi32 5y ago
Fair point, but consider that the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government is enforced by the constitution. Without a constitutional amendment, a fourth "public information" branch would have no such protection. Furthermore, consider that these days even the courts (which are supposed to be politically neutral) have become highly politicized. I can't think of any reason why a supposedly neutral fourth branch of government would be any better in that regard.
- allendoerfer 5y ago
  I do not know for sure about the US constitution, but my constitution already has freedom of press in it. I guess the press would have to distribute the money by themselves, the government would just hand it over.

MichaelBurge 5y ago

The government funds a Supreme Court that rules to overturn its own legislation, often criticizing it in the process.

pietrovismara 5y ago

Why would private investors fund news criticizing them?

jefftk 5y ago
As long as you have many different news outlets owned by different investors this should be ok?
- Miner49er 5y ago
  Except wealthy people still own the vast majority, so news will generally favor the wealthy.
- pietrovismara 5y ago
  The problem is that the interests of the private investors converge. The best we can hope from them is to fight each other, but they won't ever attack the system that keeps them all rich.