4 ms·

Which of the networks are you referring to specifically? Publically funded does not equate to newsroom not being able to operate independently (and is not neces

Which of the networks are you referring to specifically? Publically funded does not equate to newsroom not being able to operate independently (and is not necessarily the opposite to 'for-profit'). While completely transparent and unbiased news remains a pipedream, I think this is a matter of degree rather than kind--messages may be coloured by many factors such as education, social circles, personal or shared histories, communicative expectations, editorial style guides, intended audiences and so on. Direct evidence of Western governments interfering in the newsroom is also hard to come by (but may have happened on occasion). However, I do agree indirect influence can be exerted through lobbying and media conglomeration. It may be more productive to vent in this direction rather than the newsrooms themselves.

p-e-w 3y ago
> Publically funded does not equate to newsroom not being able to operate independently Of course it does. Whose bread you eat, their song you sing. "Publicly" funded ultimately means funded by the ruling government, who can decide to increase or cut that funding, and often appoints oversight boards that wield editorial control. > Direct evidence of Western governments interfering in the newsroom is also hard to come by You haven't looked very hard then. There have been several scandals in Germany where state ministers called public broadcasting officials and asked them to alter/suppress reporting on specific issues, in some cases for personal reasons (one incident involved a story about the minister's spouse IIRC).
- dleeftink 3y ago
  > but may have happened on occasion I would be interested to see the percentage of news items interfered/suppressed by third-parties vs stories that are not (specifically in the case of public broadcasters)[1]. As you are right to point out, we need to remain wary of those officials who overstep these bounds. [1]: I think the World Press Freedom index is a good place to start. https://rsf.org/en/methodology-used-compiling-world-press-freedom-index-2023?year=2023 https://rsf.org/en/methodology-used-compiling-world-press-fr...
  - p-e-w 3y ago
    Considering that such scandals tend to be revealed publicly only by a chain of coincidences, sometimes long after they occurred, the baseline assumption should be that those things happen much, much more frequently than is apparent. The World Press Freedom Index is based on a questionnaire filled out by journalistic organizations. Simply put, this means that it cannot reflect what those organizations don't know. Thus a good score in the index can mean that a country has high press freedom – or that those in power are very good at keeping such incidents under wraps (or any combination of the two).

p-e-w 3y ago

> Publically funded does not equate to newsroom not being able to operate independently Of course it does. Whose bread you eat, their song you sing. "Publicly" funded ultimately means funded by the ruling government, who can decide to increase or cut that funding, and often appoints oversight boards that wield editorial control. > Direct evidence of Western governments interfering in the newsroom is also hard to come by You haven't looked very hard then. There have been several scandals in Germany where state ministers called public broadcasting officials and asked them to alter/suppress reporting on specific issues, in some cases for personal reasons (one incident involved a story about the minister's spouse IIRC).

dleeftink 3y ago
> but may have happened on occasion I would be interested to see the percentage of news items interfered/suppressed by third-parties vs stories that are not (specifically in the case of public broadcasters)[1]. As you are right to point out, we need to remain wary of those officials who overstep these bounds. [1]: I think the World Press Freedom index is a good place to start. https://rsf.org/en/methodology-used-compiling-world-press-freedom-index-2023?year=2023 https://rsf.org/en/methodology-used-compiling-world-press-fr...
- p-e-w 3y ago
  Considering that such scandals tend to be revealed publicly only by a chain of coincidences, sometimes long after they occurred, the baseline assumption should be that those things happen much, much more frequently than is apparent. The World Press Freedom Index is based on a questionnaire filled out by journalistic organizations. Simply put, this means that it cannot reflect what those organizations don't know. Thus a good score in the index can mean that a country has high press freedom – or that those in power are very good at keeping such incidents under wraps (or any combination of the two).