5 ms·

I am astounded that the conclusion the writer comes to is.. socialize the news. Clearly people won’t pay for news because it’s flawed, the product stinks, and

I am astounded that the conclusion the writer comes to is.. socialize the news. Clearly people won’t pay for news because it’s flawed, the product stinks, and the information is biased. So here’s a great idea, let’s steal from everyone via taxes and force them to pay for it! Then it will be good somehow.

autoexecbat 2y ago
Some countries provide government funded news that is of reasonable quality, for example abc.net.au/news
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Many others, partial listing: - ABC (Australia) - BBC (UK) - CBC (Canada) - CPB, NPR, and PBS (US, though with very limited public funding) - Canal Once, Canal 22, Canal Catorce (Mexico) - DR (Denmark) - Deutshlandfunk, DeutscheWelle and regional broadcasters (NDR, RBB, SWR, MDR, WDR, BR, HR, SR, RB), the last for somewhat interesting denazification reasons. - EBC (Brazil) - ERT (Greece) - NRK (Norway) - Polskie Radio (Poland) - RNZ/TVNZ (New Zealand) - Sveriges Radio/Television (Sweden) - TVN (Chile) - VOA, AFN (US, not broadcast domestically) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_broadcasting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_broadcasting>
  - skirge 2y ago
    I don't know other countries but Polskie Radio and TVP was turned into propaganda machine of who was ruling at the time with News starting with "thanks to the XXX and despite YYY saying it was not possible/stealing/selling to the Germans". It is a reason I'm not watching TV anymore.
atrus 2y ago
I'll nibble. A lot of the badness of news comes from requiring a profit and where that profit comes from. News is required to be dramatic and sensationalist because that's what attracts attention and gets you those advertising dollar. Certain topics are off limits, because of those advertising dollars. It's basically the concept of "fuck you money" but applied to organizations. Sure, it doesn't solve every problem, but it might solve some.
- gottorf 2y ago
  > A lot of the badness of news comes from requiring a profit and where that profit comes from. The same badness will happen in a taxpayer-funded organization. After all, someone is still writing the checks, and coverage will be biased towards that someone. I'd rather there not be an official merger of the government and media that now will have an explicit incentive to paint a pretty picture of the government. The bias that an independently funded, for-profit media may have towards its funders does not scare me nearly as much as the alternative.
  - jl6 2y ago
    The BBC has a sorta-kinda-taxpayer-funded model and manages to attract criticism from all sides, which is generally taken as a compliment to its neutrality.
    - AlbertCory 2y ago
      Um, no. The criticism from the Left is, "it's not Left enough." Show us some stories, oh, the Rotherham grooming scandal, for instance, before it became a national story. Here's one afterward: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-61868863 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-61868863 > Police officers in Rotherham were not equipped to deal with the widespread child sex abuse that plagued the town for more than 15 years, according to a new report. "not equipped to deal with" ordinary heinous crimes? I thought that was what police were supposed to do.
  - somishere 2y ago
    Personal biases abound in publicly funded news orgs, just as in private. But there are models where editorial independence is maintained .. including in Australia and the UK.
  - DoctorOW 2y ago
    > After all, someone is still writing the checks, and coverage will be biased towards that someone. In a tax-funded situation, everyone is writing the checks. C-Span is just limited to its cut from cable subscriptions but even that has made it far less sensationalist. C-Span isn't entertainment, it's pure news.
johnea 2y ago
BBC is pretty good, as well as NPR. News companies are mostly collapsing. The only viable way to keep in private hands might be the Guardian model, of a trust established in it's name. Bozo could certainly afford to do that for the Wash Post, instead they're leading the race to the bottom with firings and more for-profit articles.
- gottorf 2y ago
  I don't know, Uri Berliner's critique of NPR was pretty spot-on, at least from n=1 of this former longtime listener. I found it increasingly difficult to stomach the lopsided coverage that no longer stuck to just the facts, but rather what to think and how to feel about them.
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  Neither of your comparisons is true, as I've detailed elsewhere in this thread.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    I'd be interested in what if any media sources you find to be unbiased, and, more importantly, why they are that way (as in causally, not as in descriptive characteristics). The following would address specifically how (or if) journalistic business / financing models need reform.
    - AlbertCory 2y ago
      So you're conceding that NPR and BBC are biased? Or you just want to argue? As for journalistic business / financing models: public financing will never be anything but a tool of the power structure (whether or not they happen to be in formal power at the moment). Private financing sometimes works, but doesn't at the moment.
      - dredmorbius 2y ago
        I don't want to argue, I'd like to know what you believe and why. You're welcome to share or not. What isn't a tool of the power structure? What of advertising (see the I.F. Stone interview I've posted elsewhere in this thread), or of philanthropy (take your pick of benefactors)?
glial 2y ago
Ideally, governments solve problems that are important but that society can't figure out how to solve in other ways. The questions for us are then: - is it important that voting citizens are informed about various issues? - is the market (or some other mechanism) currently meeting this need?
- Schiendelman 2y ago
  And: - would implementing "news" change the level of informedness? I don't think we can assume it would.
  - glial 2y ago
    Good call - 'news' as we know it today is optimized for engagement, not creating an informed citizenry.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dredmorbius 2y ago
What's your alternative? Are there specific parts of my diagnosis or etiology you specifically disagree with? Which?

autoexecbat 2y ago

Some countries provide government funded news that is of reasonable quality, for example abc.net.au/news

dredmorbius 2y ago
Many others, partial listing: - ABC (Australia) - BBC (UK) - CBC (Canada) - CPB, NPR, and PBS (US, though with very limited public funding) - Canal Once, Canal 22, Canal Catorce (Mexico) - DR (Denmark) - Deutshlandfunk, DeutscheWelle and regional broadcasters (NDR, RBB, SWR, MDR, WDR, BR, HR, SR, RB), the last for somewhat interesting denazification reasons. - EBC (Brazil) - ERT (Greece) - NRK (Norway) - Polskie Radio (Poland) - RNZ/TVNZ (New Zealand) - Sveriges Radio/Television (Sweden) - TVN (Chile) - VOA, AFN (US, not broadcast domestically) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_broadcasting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_broadcasting>
- skirge 2y ago
  I don't know other countries but Polskie Radio and TVP was turned into propaganda machine of who was ruling at the time with News starting with "thanks to the XXX and despite YYY saying it was not possible/stealing/selling to the Germans". It is a reason I'm not watching TV anymore.

atrus 2y ago

I'll nibble. A lot of the badness of news comes from requiring a profit and where that profit comes from. News is required to be dramatic and sensationalist because that's what attracts attention and gets you those advertising dollar. Certain topics are off limits, because of those advertising dollars. It's basically the concept of "fuck you money" but applied to organizations. Sure, it doesn't solve every problem, but it might solve some.

gottorf 2y ago
> A lot of the badness of news comes from requiring a profit and where that profit comes from. The same badness will happen in a taxpayer-funded organization. After all, someone is still writing the checks, and coverage will be biased towards that someone. I'd rather there not be an official merger of the government and media that now will have an explicit incentive to paint a pretty picture of the government. The bias that an independently funded, for-profit media may have towards its funders does not scare me nearly as much as the alternative.
- jl6 2y ago
  The BBC has a sorta-kinda-taxpayer-funded model and manages to attract criticism from all sides, which is generally taken as a compliment to its neutrality.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    Um, no. The criticism from the Left is, "it's not Left enough." Show us some stories, oh, the Rotherham grooming scandal, for instance, before it became a national story. Here's one afterward: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-61868863 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-61868863 > Police officers in Rotherham were not equipped to deal with the widespread child sex abuse that plagued the town for more than 15 years, according to a new report. "not equipped to deal with" ordinary heinous crimes? I thought that was what police were supposed to do.
- somishere 2y ago
  Personal biases abound in publicly funded news orgs, just as in private. But there are models where editorial independence is maintained .. including in Australia and the UK.
- DoctorOW 2y ago
  > After all, someone is still writing the checks, and coverage will be biased towards that someone. In a tax-funded situation, everyone is writing the checks. C-Span is just limited to its cut from cable subscriptions but even that has made it far less sensationalist. C-Span isn't entertainment, it's pure news.

johnea 2y ago

BBC is pretty good, as well as NPR. News companies are mostly collapsing. The only viable way to keep in private hands might be the Guardian model, of a trust established in it's name. Bozo could certainly afford to do that for the Wash Post, instead they're leading the race to the bottom with firings and more for-profit articles.

gottorf 2y ago
I don't know, Uri Berliner's critique of NPR was pretty spot-on, at least from n=1 of this former longtime listener. I found it increasingly difficult to stomach the lopsided coverage that no longer stuck to just the facts, but rather what to think and how to feel about them.
AlbertCory 2y ago
Neither of your comparisons is true, as I've detailed elsewhere in this thread.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  I'd be interested in what if any media sources you find to be unbiased, and, more importantly, why they are that way (as in causally, not as in descriptive characteristics). The following would address specifically how (or if) journalistic business / financing models need reform.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    So you're conceding that NPR and BBC are biased? Or you just want to argue? As for journalistic business / financing models: public financing will never be anything but a tool of the power structure (whether or not they happen to be in formal power at the moment). Private financing sometimes works, but doesn't at the moment.
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      I don't want to argue, I'd like to know what you believe and why. You're welcome to share or not. What isn't a tool of the power structure? What of advertising (see the I.F. Stone interview I've posted elsewhere in this thread), or of philanthropy (take your pick of benefactors)?

glial 2y ago

Ideally, governments solve problems that are important but that society can't figure out how to solve in other ways. The questions for us are then: - is it important that voting citizens are informed about various issues? - is the market (or some other mechanism) currently meeting this need?

Schiendelman 2y ago
And: - would implementing "news" change the level of informedness? I don't think we can assume it would.
- glial 2y ago
  Good call - 'news' as we know it today is optimized for engagement, not creating an informed citizenry.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dredmorbius 2y ago

What's your alternative? Are there specific parts of my diagnosis or etiology you specifically disagree with? Which?