3 ms·

I would prefer a higher signal to noise ratio. For example, Radio Free Asia is a project of the federal government. Defunding it is a political decision. Freedo

I would prefer a higher signal to noise ratio. For example, Radio Free Asia is a project of the federal government. Defunding it is a political decision. Freedom of the press does not mean the government is obligated to fund media nonprofits it has funded in the past. If those sounding alarms don't distinguish between political decisions they disagree with and violations of our rights, they will lose credibility ala Boy Who Cried Wolf, and struggle to mobilize people when it really matters.

someothherguyy 2y ago
RFA is funded by USAGM a independent agency of the US federal government. Do you argue against the idea of an independent agency? Are you saying its dismantlement was legal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Agency_for_Global_Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Agency_for_Global_Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_federal_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...
- ralfd 2y ago
  > In June 2018, President Trump announced his intention to nominate documentary film producer Michael Pack to head the agency. He was confirmed by the Senate two years later, and served from June 5, 2020 until January 20, 2021, when he was asked to resign at the request of newly-inaugurated President Joe Biden. Doesnt sound very independent to me if the President can exchange the agency head.
  - someothherguyy 2y ago
    Some history there: https://www.rferl.org/a/obama-signs-law-restructuring-us-international-media-voa-rferl-board-governors/28194511.html https://www.rferl.org/a/obama-signs-law-restructuring-us-int...
- getnormality 2y ago
  No, I'm not opining here on whether stopping RFA is legal or a good idea. I'm only saying that I don't think it's an attack on the freedom of the press when the president stops funding media organizations, even if it's because of their viewpoint. I think the concept of freedom of the press was created to protect press organizations that are actually independent of the government from government interference. It cannot plausibly or sustainably extend to a government funding entitlement. If it did, it would mean perpetual entanglement of our precious universal, politically neutral liberal protections with the eternal mud-wrestling match of partisan politics. If USAGM is entitled to funding by act of Congress, I consider that a separate issue from First Amendment freedom of the press.
apical_dendrite 2y ago
When the government's reason for defunding a media organization is based on that organization's viewpoint, then it is absolutely an attack on freedom of the press. I'm not sure about Radio Free Asia, but Trump has specifically cited his objections to the viewpoints of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty as the reason for destroying them.

someothherguyy 2y ago

RFA is funded by USAGM a independent agency of the US federal government. Do you argue against the idea of an independent agency? Are you saying its dismantlement was legal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Agency_for_Global_Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Agency_for_Global_Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_federal_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...

ralfd 2y ago
> In June 2018, President Trump announced his intention to nominate documentary film producer Michael Pack to head the agency. He was confirmed by the Senate two years later, and served from June 5, 2020 until January 20, 2021, when he was asked to resign at the request of newly-inaugurated President Joe Biden. Doesnt sound very independent to me if the President can exchange the agency head.
- someothherguyy 2y ago
  Some history there: https://www.rferl.org/a/obama-signs-law-restructuring-us-international-media-voa-rferl-board-governors/28194511.html https://www.rferl.org/a/obama-signs-law-restructuring-us-int...
getnormality 2y ago
No, I'm not opining here on whether stopping RFA is legal or a good idea. I'm only saying that I don't think it's an attack on the freedom of the press when the president stops funding media organizations, even if it's because of their viewpoint. I think the concept of freedom of the press was created to protect press organizations that are actually independent of the government from government interference. It cannot plausibly or sustainably extend to a government funding entitlement. If it did, it would mean perpetual entanglement of our precious universal, politically neutral liberal protections with the eternal mud-wrestling match of partisan politics. If USAGM is entitled to funding by act of Congress, I consider that a separate issue from First Amendment freedom of the press.

apical_dendrite 2y ago

When the government's reason for defunding a media organization is based on that organization's viewpoint, then it is absolutely an attack on freedom of the press. I'm not sure about Radio Free Asia, but Trump has specifically cited his objections to the viewpoints of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty as the reason for destroying them.