7 ms·
Slightly offtopic, but I feel like America's lack of a true public broadcaster like the BBC in the UK, ABC in Australia, CBC in Canada etc. is a major contribut
by o8o8o8o 4y ago
Slightly offtopic, but I feel like America's lack of a true public broadcaster like the BBC in the UK, ABC in Australia, CBC in Canada etc. is a major contributor to America's polarization issues. NPR is okay but it doesn't fully fill the void that's missing there. Since Americans don't have a public broadcaster that they all have a stake in as taxpayers, Americans pick and choose which news sources they listen to, which inevitably leads people to listen to news that confirms their personal biases. Of course, Americans are allergic to such things as "state run propaganda".
- loxias 4y agoThat's what I think of NPR as.
- kgen 4y agoThere's PBS, but yeah if it had the popularity of BBC it would probably look a lot different.
- gandalfgeek 4y ago> Of course, Americans are allergic to such things as "state run propaganda". ... for good reason. Is there evidence to show that the BBC and CBC have reduced polarization in Britain and Canada? One could argue that they have plenty of their own biases and are not especially good at detecting or correcting for those.
- vkou 4y agoNot for any 'good' reason, given how they are not allergic to other utterly insane examples of state propaganda (constant glorification of the military, the executive, childhood recitation of the pledge of allegiance). The only reason for why there isn't a CBC equivalent in the US is 'because it happened that way'. Trying to find some generalized reason in this particular artifact of a political culture is like trying to find reason in a drunkard's walk.
- Y_Y 4y agoThe implausible claim needed proof here isn't that one. Those state broadcasters absolutely do have their own angle (pro-state, and pro whatever the editorial staff is into, vaguely left of centre stuff these days). They aren't on the same level as major US news networks when it comes to distortion and agenda-pushing though. This is my opinion, but there are plenty of systematic studies that show the same thing. If you look but can't find any then I'll come back with links.
- web3-is-a-scam 4y agoCanadian here: the CBC contributes to polarization more than any other media outlet in the country. It’s become a wedge issue that conservatives want to complete defund the public subsidies or even abolish it.
- jszymborski 4y agoPBS and NPR are common targets of Republicans also. It really has nothing to do with any implicit bias or polarising content.
- dboreham 4y agoIt's to do with suppressing the truth, or anything close to it. Same as most religions persecute scientists.
- gnarbarian 4y agosuppressing truth is the primary function of media.
- phist_mcgee 4y agoNow that is a hot take.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- boastful_inaba 4y ago[flagged]
- waboremo 4y agoNeither CBC, ABC, or BBC are "infamously left-leaning". They are very much all center. That's literally one of their biggest criticisms, that they're too "boring" by not taking more of a stand on anything. Also, important to note: Rupert Murdoch is directly involved in the funding of trying to convince people that these public broadcasters are "too left leaning". For his own profitable gains, as the more people turn away from them, the more they turn to stations he owns. Something to think about.
- egberts1 4y agoCentrist by ommission is not the same as actively pursuing a true journalistic path.
- waboremo 4y ago>true journalistic path Which has very little meaning as "true" can mean whatever you want it to mean. BBC, ABC, and CBC have much higher journalistic integrity than their private counterparts.
- egberts1 4y agoAgreed. True journalistic path is not about the truth but about the dispensation of facts in a way that will help the reader make an informed decision pertinent to themselves and its surrounding. Otherwise, we have "National Enquirers" infestation and all those who are yellow-journaling in their chasing of the last revenue pool.
- Rovoska 4y agoCalling the famously transphobic bbc left wing is a hilarious joke.
- 4y ago
- waboremo 4y agoThey do have CPB, which does fund the likes of PBS and NPR among others. But even that has been called into question not too long ago and they were trying to push to defund CPB (even though it's budget is around $450m).
- slackfan 4y agoVoice of America exists.
- libraryatnight 4y agoPBS has some great stuff, but people don't watch it. Their news program is actually good - if you're someone in the US that likes an evening news program but gets exhausted by local stations that don't actually do news beyond warm fuzzies and outright terror, and major outlets that do some news then flog it for 48 hours until their opinions are indistinguishable from their reporting, it's worth checking out.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tootie 4y agoPBS and NPR are the same. They are private non-profits whose existence is blessed by Congress and given partial, indirect financial support by government. By contrast, the BBC is full on government agency whose revenue comes from a specific tax.
- JeremyNT 4y agoExactly. It's always really odd to watch an episode of eg NOVA about climate change only to see the underwriting by the Koch foundation. It seems like they aren't selling influence or pulling punches for their benefactors... but would I actually be able to tell if they were?
- a_w 4y ago"Name washing"? Is there such term/phrase? I stopped watching a show on PBS once the API (American Petroleum Institute) began sponsoring it.
- javajosh 4y agoPBS News Hour is a great resource. They now have a YouTube channel with all their content, including live streams. They tend to have a very sensible approach to news. They don't have sponsors to please or audience numbers to hit. They also broadcast considerably less than the 24-hour news networks, which means the ratio of news to opinion is much higher. Their goal seems to be inform, not inflame. I like them.
- pcurve 4y agoPSA... You can stream and watch ondemand PBS. FRONTLINE is great. They did a show on banking crisis. https://www.pbs.org/video/age-of-easy-money-osu8cj/ https://www.pbs.org/video/age-of-easy-money-osu8cj/
- ch4s3 4y agoIs the UK any less polarized?
- astrange 4y agoThe UK is reversed; their TV is more like our print media and their print media is more like our TV. i.e. all the newspapers just print Tory propaganda nonstop and don't report on any scandals until they suddenly notice something happened a year after when they decide to not like the PM anymore.
- ch4s3 4y agoI’m aware, but it’s in effect very similar.
- dehrmann 4y ago> Since Americans don't have a public broadcaster that they all have a stake in as taxpayers, Americans pick and choose which news sources they listen to If you disagree with the public broadcaster, you'll still choose a new source you agree with, along with a movement to defund the public broadcaster.
- insane_dreamer 4y ago> Since Americans don't have a public broadcaster PBS? (Literally "public broadcasting service")
- karaterobot 4y agoEvidently that doesn't qualify, being inconvenient for the original commenter's rhetorical point.
- refurb 4y agoI dont know. The CBC has a very clear political bent to it. It‘s national reporting is clearly from the angle of the upper-middle class who live in Toronto. Either that or just regurgitating the major outlets in the US. So if you mean “America would benefit from a government run media outlet that mostly supports one party” then i’d have to disagree.
- akira2501 4y ago> is a major contributor to America's polarization issues. To what extent is this an actual "issue?" What are we sacrificing for having a plethora of divergent ideas? > Since Americans don't have a public broadcaster that they all have a stake in as taxpayers I would really prefer not to have one, and in the era of the internet inside of a nation with a strong first amendment that these other countries do not enjoy, I'm not sure what it could possibly add. > Americans pick and choose which news sources they listen to Freedom of choice is wonderful, but what you are missing is that several media ownership rules were rescinded in the 1990s. There used to be _more_ choice. Strangely, that actually _reduced_ the "issue" of polarization. > which inevitably leads people to listen to news that confirms their personal biases. Then that probably isn't news. It's an opinion piece masquerading under a news masthead. I'm not sure how true news, that is factual information told by someone who's only interest is informing the public, creates bias. > Americans are allergic to such things as "state run propaganda". I contributed to NPR, right up until I felt they were veering into "state run propaganda." If they truly covered the news, I might donate again. It's a market, they should serve it, and not seek to survive as a tax driven entity answerable to a federal congress. I'm sure that would just make things worse.
- lizard 4y ago> To what extent is this an actual "issue?" What are we sacrificing for having a plethora of divergent ideas? There's nothing wrong with divergent ideas per se, but divergent ideas themselves don't really do anything. You and I probably have different ideas about something. And we can leave it at that and both go on with our lives, never interacting and learning about another idea than our own. In the best case, nothing is gained by this, and that's OK and probably even describes the majority of interactions we will ever have with distinct people. But the "value" of divergent ideas is when they converge back together and generate brand new ideas their neither party would have on their own. But, in the worst case we continue to diverge in our own ideas, only ever converging with people with the same ideas, building "echo chambers" that separate us from anything new and "in-groups" and "out-groups" that further divide us. And this seems to be the problem with American politics, and bleeding into American society in general. Everything's a partisan issue and everything's on the extremes, so you're either a left-extremist, a right-extremist, or you're not even part of the conversation. If something isn't promoting our ideas, isn't serving us and shouldn't be supported. So, what we seem to be sacrificing for having these divergent ideas is having any meaningful conversations that can create new ways forward. Which certainly does seem to be creating a lot of issues. But for what it's worth, considering how our federal congress behaves these days, I'm inclinded to agree that a tax funded public broadcaster would probably not really be in our best interest.
- mshroyer 4y agoHeaven forbid that "Americans pick and choose which news sources they listen to".
- weberer 4y agoThe USA does have state run propaganda. Its called Voice of America.