Support NeoGAF

[besada]

Is is wrong just to think that the government shouldn't be running the news. Its nothing doubting the democratic nature its just the government has no place to decide what is and isn't news.

Why does a corporation, answerable to no one but its shareholders, have more of a right to determine what is news than the duly elected representatives of the people?

 

[lo escondido]

Are you going to make a case that the BBC is not among the best disseminators of news in the world? That might be more direct to the issue at hand than pussyfooting around who "controls" it. Make the case that we should avoid the BBC due to its pro-crown propaganda.

Its damn good at disseminating news but so is fox. I don't understand how the fact that they can get their word out makes them better.

But theres always this, it has bias (but I'm going to assume that you don't have a big a problem because you agree with a lot of their opinions)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

I (and most American's) think government funded media is just wrong and the opposite of limited government what this country is about. Just as you think wealth redistribution is good.

 

[MalboroRed]

Why does a corporation, answerable to no one but its shareholders, have more of a right to determine what is news than the duly elected representatives of the people?

Because most of the corporations are publicly traded companies, they are answerable to whoever holds shares in the company, anybody can buy their shares, shareholders care about profits, the viewing public can freely choose who to watch and THAT dictates which media company succeeds and which doesn't, the media company that offers more of what the majority of people want to watch will do better than the ones that don't because of more advertising dollars, better yet they're not controlled by the government and people are not forced to pay for a public broadcasting company that they don't necessarily want to support.

 

[lo escondido]

Why does a corporation, answerable to no one but its shareholders, have more of a right to determine what is news than the duly elected representatives of the people?

It's also answerable to its customers which are the same "people." I just don't think "news" is something that the government should be doing.

I do understand and sympathize with your argument if it say came to other government services that I think the government has a better argument for being involved in (health care, transport, military)

 

[TacticalFox88]

Why does a corporation, answerable to no one but its shareholders, have more of a right to determine what is news than the duly elected representatives of the people?

Because common perception among people that if it's Government run, then it's obviously propaganda. Obviously, this isn't true all the time, just telling you the mindset of people.

 

[besada]

I (and most American's) think government funded media is just wrong and the opposite of limited government what this country is about. Just as you think wealth redistribution is good.

Most Americans support NPR, which is publicly funded media, so I think you may not actually have your finger on the pulse of what "most Americans" want. Unless you have some sort of citation for that opinion? Most Americans also support wealth redistribution via a progressive tax, so again, maybe you shouldn't substitute your opinions for those of "most Americans" without some sort of evidence.

 

[demon]

Any time someone argues that corporations should have more of a right to control the news than a publically funded network, I look at NPR, then I look at CNN, MSNBC and most of all Fox News, and I wonder what the hell reality they're living in.

 

[MalboroRed]

Most Americans support NPR, which is publicly funded media, so I think you may not actually have your finger on the pulse of what "most Americans" want. Unless you have some sort of citation for that opinion? Most Americans also support wealth redistribution via a progressive tax, so again, maybe you shouldn't substitute your opinions for those of "most Americans" without some sort of evidence.

Do most americans even watch NPR? It's not like NPR is anywhere as popular as the mainstream networks or any of the large cable news channel, the test would be to cut off NPR funding completely through various channels and see how well NPR can thrive on its niche.

 

[Clevinger]

Do most americans even watch NPR? It's not like NPR is anywhere as popular as the mainstream networks or any of the large cable news channel, the test would be to cut off NPR funding completely through various channels and see how well NPR can thrive on its niche.

NPR is not on TV...

 

[MalboroRed]

Any time someone argues that corporations should have more of a right to control the news than a publically funded network, I look at NPR, then I look at CNN, MSNBC and most of all Fox News, and I wonder what the hell reality they're living in.

The difference is that media corporations have to change their management and their message if they can't appeal to the news audience, this is what happens to CNN constantly, this is why Fox News is successful, whether you agree with the right-leaning message or not, there are a lot of people on the right watching Fox News, it appeals to a large audience, the point is they serve a large audience. With a public broadcasting corporation, when you're not as dependent on viewership, you don't have to appeal to the public, you don't have to produce what the majority wants.

NPR is not on TV...

Isn't PBS part of NPR?

 

[RustyNails]

Because most of the corporations are publicly traded companies, they are answerable to whoever holds shares in the company, anybody can buy their shares, shareholders care about profits, the viewing public can freely choose who to watch and THAT dictates which media company succeeds and which doesn't, the media company that offers more of what the majority of people want to watch will do better than the ones that don't because of more advertising dollars, better yet they're not controlled by the government and people are not forced to pay for a public broadcasting company that they don't necessarily want to support.

How is that (bolded part) considered news in any objective manner? You're feeding people what they want to eat, not what they should eat.

 

[AbsoluteZero]

Heard some of the Weiner press conference yesterday. People were screaming at him "PERVERT" and another guy goes "SO HOW BIG IS IT? 7 INCHES?"

That was hilarious. "THE PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW...WERE YOU FULLY ERECT?"

 

[besada]

Do most americans even watch NPR? It's not like NPR is anywhere as popular as the mainstream networks or any of the large cable news channel, the test would be to cut off NPR funding completely through various channels and see how well NPR can thrive on its niche.

Actually, NPR has some of the most-listened radio shows on the air. Morning Edition and All Things considered pull similar numbers to Hannity and Rush.

I see you're talking about PBS, though. PBS Kids routinely tops the list for children's programming.

One doesn't have to cut funding (which is something the majority of Americans don't want anyway) to determine ratings, since PBS now works with Nielsen and NPR gets Arbitron ratings.

The difference is that media corporations have to change their management and their message if they can't appeal to the news audience, this is what happens to CNN constantly, this is why Fox News is successful, whether you agree with the right-leaning message or not, there are a lot of people on the right watching Fox News, it appeals to a large audience, the point is they serve a large audience. With a public broadcasting corporation, when you're not as dependent on viewership, you don't have to appeal to the public, you don't have to produce what the majority wants.

Do you think news, which is supposed to be factual, should be determined by popularity? What you're holding up as a strength for corporate media is its biggest weakness. The modern news media is driven by ratings, which is the reason they spend weeks of coverage on Congressional penises and kidnapped little white girls while the actual news isn't getting reported. Virtually every complaint about the modern news media, from bias to poor reporting, can be laid at the feet of the constant battle for higher ratings.

 

[Dude Abides]

Do most americans even watch NPR? It's not like NPR is anywhere as popular as the mainstream networks or any of the large cable news channel, the test would be to cut off NPR funding completely through various channels and see how well NPR can thrive on its niche.

No. Not a single American watches National Public Radio.

 

[PantherLotus]

"Isn't PBS a part of NPR?"

Holy fucking shit, man.

 

[Clevinger]

Isn't PBS part of NPR?

No.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

People do realize there is already publicly funded news groups like Radio Free Liberty, Al Hurra (sp), and a few others. They are actually governed an independent board of governors, people can listenor watch that if they want (Smith Mindy Act notwithstanding), why add more?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

People do realize there is already publicly funded news groups like Radio Free Liberty, Al Hurra (sp), and a few others. They are actually governed an independent board of governors, people can listenor watch that if they want (Smith Mindy Act notwithstanding), why add more?

You mean...

...

...like the BBC?

 

[TacticalFox88]

Isn't PBS part of NPR?

Yes, the Public Broadcasting Service is TOTALLY part of the National Public Radio.

*rollseyes&

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Yes, the Public Broadcasting Service is TOTALLY part of the National Public Radio.

*rollseyes&

Both receive funds from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which I suppose is the point.

 

[besada]

Yes, the Public Broadcasting Service is TOTALLY part of the National Public Radio.

*rollseyes&

Really, you didn't think enough people had piled onto that particular mistake?

 

[demon]

The difference is that media corporations have to change their management and their message if they can't appeal to the news audience, this is what happens to CNN constantly, this is why Fox News is successful, whether you agree with the right-leaning message or not, there are a lot of people on the right watching Fox News, it appeals to a large audience, the point is they serve a large audience. With a public broadcasting corporation, when you're not as dependent on viewership, you don't have to appeal to the public, you don't have to produce what the majority wants.

We're talking about news, not the latest SpikeTV show lineup. How is that relevant? Are you advocating that the news media- an integral part of a functioning democracy- give the public news they want to hear regardless of the truth?

This is exactly the problem with corporate controlled news media. They are in it first and foremost for the money, and that creates a direct conflict of interest with the function of a good news media.

 

[empty vessel]

Its damn good at disseminating news but so is fox. I don't understand how the fact that they can get their word out makes them better.

Fox is atrocious at disseminating news. It can't even be considered a news organization. It's an entertainment organization.

But theres always this, it has bias (but I'm going to assume that you don't have a big a problem because you agree with a lot of their opinions)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

From you link: "Accusations of a left-wing bias were often made against the BBC by members of Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government in the 1980s." D'oh! The government accusing the government of bias!

I (and most American's) think government funded media is just wrong and the opposite of limited government what this country is about. Just as you think wealth redistribution is good.

Then you're incredibly hostile and opposed to democracy. Which is fine, but let's be frank about our positions.

“At around $420 million in federal funds per year, the United States has one of the lowest-funded public media systems in the developed world. The federal government allocates a paltry $1.43 per person each year to maintain the system, compared to more than 70 times that amount in Finland and nearly 80 times that amount in Denmark. If the United States spent as much on public media as those countries, it would total $30 billion annually.”

http://www.hallnj.org/index.php/top...he-wrong-time-to-cut-support-for-public-media

And I think you're wrong about what "most Americans" believe.

"A Harris telephone survey commissioned by the Public Relations Society of America and released Thursday found that 61% of the general public generally trusted news on PBS and NPR, while 56% trusted papers like the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal or New York Times, and 53% trusted the commercial broadcast and cable news operations."

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/158913-Survey_Says_Noncom_News_Most_Trusted.php

It's also answerable to its customers which are the same "people." I just don't think "news" is something that the government should be doing.

Oh boy. You are not corporate media's customer. You are its product. Advertisers are corporate media's customers. Corporate media companies sell viewers (product) to advertisers (customer). That's why they cannot produce news. It's not even a contemplated product. Whatever they produce is merely a means to create their product (an audience) and nothing more. It is not an end in and of itself. This is extremely critical to understand.

 

[RustyNails]

The difference is that media corporations have to change their management and their message if they can't appeal to the news audience, this is what happens to CNN constantly, this is why Fox News is successful, whether you agree with the right-leaning message or not, there are a lot of people on the right watching Fox News, it appeals to a large audience, the point is they serve a large audience. With a public broadcasting corporation, when you're not as dependent on viewership, you don't have to appeal to the public, you don't have to produce what the majority wants.

Again, no one cares about ratings and number of viewers/listeners for a news channel. I hate it when people show the success of Fox News over CNN or Rush Limbaugh over NPR as if to show that more audience means better. NO. Millions of people will go watch that new Transformers movie, but that doesn't make the movie good. It will appeal to their senses, and that's about it. A news station should be objective and should not care about it's ratings. If people don't like to listen to facts, it's their prerogative.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

Because most of the corporations are publicly traded companies, they are answerable to whoever holds shares in the company, anybody can buy their shares, shareholders care about profits, the viewing public can freely choose who to watch and THAT dictates which media company succeeds and which doesn't, the media company that offers more of what the majority of people want to watch will do better than the ones that don't because of more advertising dollars, better yet they're not controlled by the government and people are not forced to pay for a public broadcasting company that they don't necessarily want to support.

How is this perceived as a good thing?

You know what this gets us? It gets us two hours of Nancy Grace a day and it gets us Glenn Beck and Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. People aren't interested in the news, they're interested in sensationalized garbage force-fed to them by abrasive, controversial personalities.

Could you imagine CNN, MSNBC or Fox doing a bit on a politician and only providing the facts without going on about asinine garbage?

Corporate news media and the 24 hour news channel are some of the worst things to happen to this country.

 

[MalboroRed]

How is that (bolded part) considered news in any objective manner? You're feeding people what they want to eat, not what they should eat.

There is always a bias, just because it's a publicly funded broadcasting company doesn't mean it's going to be completely objective, PBS isn't objective, CBC in Canada isn't objective either, having to compete against a successful CanWest and CTV networks keeps them honest, they couldn't be too left-leaning during the Canadian federal elections because otherwise they would lose viewership.

A publicly funded broadcasting company might report something people are not interested in, in which case THEY WON'T WATCH, even though they're forced to pay, so why force people to pay for something they don't watch?

The point of democracy is freedom to do what you want, you can ADVISE people what to eat to be healthy, but you don't FEED them what they "should" eat, you don't control what they eat.

 

[Clevinger]

The point of democracy is freedom to do what you want, you can ADVISE people what to eat to be healthy, but you don't FEED them what they "should" eat, you don't control what they eat.

Except that I pay for their gluttony in my premiums, just like my livelihood is affected by voters ignorance.

 

[MalboroRed]

How is this perceived as a good thing?

You know what this gets us? It gets us two hours of Nancy Grace a day and it gets us Glenn Beck and Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. People aren't interested in the news, they're interested in sensationalized garbage force-fed to them by abrasive, controversial personalities.

Could you imagine CNN, MSNBC or Fox doing a bit on a politician and only providing the facts without going on about asinine garbage?

Corporate news media and the 24 hour news channel are some of the worst things to happen to this country.

The people you listed are not news reporters, they are commentators, their job IS to have an opinion on something.

If you don't want to watch Nancy Grace or Glenn Beck or Hannity or the O'Reilly Factor, then you have the right not to watch, you are FREE to watch something else, it doesn't cost you a thing, however a lot of people happen to like watching Beck and Hannity and O'Reilly, the audience is not force-fed (especially when Fox News is a specialty channel and people CHOOSE to pay for that service), they like their viewpoints, if they want news on Fox News they can watch Sheppard Smith or Brett Baier or John Scott/Jenna Lee, none of those are right-way commentators.

Except that I pay for their gluttony in my premiums, just like my livelihood is affected by voters ignorance.

So you want to dictate how other people eat and how other people vote, other people have no rights? Should we all swear off red meat and alcohol and smokes? Drink mineral water? Vote left all the time?

 

[empty vessel]

The difference is that media corporations have to change their management and their message if they can't appeal to the news audience, this is what happens to CNN constantly, this is why Fox News is successful, whether you agree with the right-leaning message or not, there are a lot of people on the right watching Fox News, it appeals to a large audience, the point is they serve a large audience. With a public broadcasting corporation, when you're not as dependent on viewership, you don't have to appeal to the public, you don't have to produce what the majority wants.

That people are watching it does not make it news. News is not defined as "what people watch." As I said earlier, this post demonstrates perfectly well why corporate for-profit businesses cannot produce news adequately, because news is not what they produce. Instead, they produce and sell audiences--viewers, readers, etc.--to advertisers. Their content is just a means to that end, and is not a product in and of itself.

A democracy has to have news disseminated. These organizations are simply not in that business. A robust publicly funded media is essential to fill this role in a democracy. In my opinion, reasonable people cannot disagree.

 

[TacticalFox88]

How is this perceived as a good thing?

You know what this gets us? It gets us two hours of Nancy Grace a day and it gets us Glenn Beck and Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. People aren't interested in the news, they're interested in sensationalized garbage force-fed to them by abrasive, controversial personalities.

Could you imagine CNN, MSNBC or Fox doing a bit on a politician and only providing the facts without going on about asinine garbage?

Corporate news media and the 24 hour news channel are some of the worst things to happen to this country.

They'd lose ratings in a heart beat. It's like you said, they enjoy being spoon fed and outright lied to, rather than looking at the facts objectively.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

You mean...

...

...like the BBC?

Yes, and aren't most of them viewed as US Propaganda (regardless of the truth of that) and are prohibited (at least they were) from being broadcasted in the US. Look up Smith Mundt

 

[polyh3dron]

Now MarlboroRed is going to be all like "ZOMG PoliGAF is mean, ganging up on conservatives like this" when it's just people pointing out his ignorance.

I mean come on... You're saying Brett Bair is a straight down the middle news guy? LOL

 

[Chichikov]

There is always a bias, just because it's a publicly funded broadcasting company doesn't mean it's going to be completely objective, PBS isn't objective, CBC in Canada isn't objective either, having to compete against a successful CanWest and CTV networks keeps them honest, they couldn't be too left-leaning during the Canadian federal elections because otherwise they would lose viewership.

PBS isn't objective?
Being objective doesn't mean not having an opinion, that's silly, it means that your opinions doesn't get in the way in the reporting of the facts.

A publicly funded broadcasting company might report something people are not interested in, in which case THEY WON'T WATCH, even though they're forced to pay, so why force people to pay for something they don't watch?

The point of democracy is freedom to do what you want, you can ADVISE people what to eat to be healthy, but you don't FEED them what they "should" eat, you don't control what they eat.

And what if people want public broadcasting?
Also, how does the government control PBS exactly?
Was Bush able to influence content during his presidency?

 

[MalboroRed]

That people are watching it does not make it news. News is not defined as "what people watch." As I said earlier, this post demonstrates perfectly well why corporate for-profit businesses cannot produce news adequately, because news is not what they produce. Instead, they produce and sell audiences--viewers, readers, etc.--to advertisers. Their content is just a means to that end, and is not a product in and of itself.

A democracy has to have news disseminated. These organizations are simply not in that business. A robust publicly funded media is essential to fill this role in a democracy. In my opinion, reasonable people cannot disagree.

They're not watching opinion shows as news to begin with, Fox News has timeslots dedicated to news reports.

Reasonable people DO disagree from time to time, because people are different, not everybody believes you need a publicly funded media wing of the government to report news, people are not homogeneous, and you can't force people in a democratic society to be homogeneous.

 

[MalboroRed]

PBS isn't objective?
Being objective doesn't mean not having an opinion, that's silly, it means that your opinions doesn't get in the way in the reporting of the facts.

And what if people want public broadcasting?
Also, how does the government control PBS exactly?
Was Bush able to influence content during his presidency?

But opinions do get in the way of reporting the facts sometimes.

If people want public broadcasting they can push their representatives for it.

 

[Chichikov]

But opinions do get in the way of reporting the facts sometimes.

Do you think that happen often on PBS?
Or are we talking in theory here?
Yes, it is possible for a news organization to not be objective, but what news organization is more objective than PBS in your mind?

If people want public broadcasting they can push their representatives for it.

Which is what they did.
So can we drop the whole "this is infringing on my freedom" angle?
You do accept that government programs don't need to have 100% public support, right?
And yes, you are "forced" to pay for such programs.
Like I was "forced" to pay for the Iraq War.

It's called living in a society.

 

[RustyNails]

There is always a bias, just because it's a publicly funded broadcasting company doesn't mean it's going to be completely objective, PBS isn't objective, CBC in Canada isn't objective either, having to compete against a successful CanWest and CTV networks keeps them honest, they couldn't be too left-leaning during the Canadian federal elections because otherwise they would lose viewership.

A publicly funded broadcasting company might report something people are not interested in, in which case THEY WON'T WATCH, even though they're forced to pay, so why force people to pay for something they don't watch?

The point of democracy is freedom to do what you want, you can ADVISE people what to eat to be healthy, but you don't FEED them what they "should" eat, you don't control what they eat.

The government is not forcing you to do anything. I already mentioned this in the last post. If you don't wanna listen to the facts, it's your prerogative. No one is forcing you to watch Frontline on PBS. You can simply change the channel and go back to watching Sean Hannity frothing at the mouth for 1 hour. Saying PBS is not objective is a pretty big statement. Accusations of liberal bias here and there is not equal to full on madness of the rightwing news machine.

And please, don't teach me what the point of democracy is. Democracy is not a carte-blanche to do whatever you want. It simply is a political system where people elect representatives based on popular vote and in order to do that effectively, you need an informed debate and truthful news. If all you have are Fox Newses in the country and abolish public broadcasting, you will have a nation of talking point chatterboxes. Yes, people will vote, but they are voting on behalf of the corporate interests that are the men behind the curtain, not based on their own interests.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

The people you listed are not news reporters, they are commentators, their job IS to have an opinion on something.

If you don't want to watch Nancy Grace or Glenn Beck or Hannity or the O'Reilly Factor, then you have the right not to watch, you are FREE to watch something else, it doesn't cost you a thing, however a lot of people happen to like watching Beck and Hannity and O'Reilly, the audience is not force-fed (especially when Fox News is a specialty channel and people CHOOSE to pay for that service), they like their viewpoints, if they want news on Fox News they can watch Sheppard Smith or Brett Baier or John Scott/Jenna Lee, none of those are right-way commentators.

Actually I do pay for them even though I don't watch them because the company through which I get my service insists I have the package that contains the "news" if I want my entertainment.

I'd rather pay to have honest news reporting on the air instead of being forced to pay for this garbage.

 

[empty vessel]

They're not watching opinion shows as news to begin with, Fox News has timeslots dedicated to news reports.

Reasonable people DO disagree from time to time, because people are different, not everybody believes you need a publicly funded media wing of the government to report news, people are not homogeneous, and you can't force people in a democratic society to be homogeneous.

What does this have to do with homogeneity? This has to do with the dissemination of news, which the US is in egregiously short supply of. Because the private market cannot fill this role, the government must, because an informed citizenry--or at least a citizenry that has access to widely disseminated news--is critical to democracy.

Fox can continue making its entertainment, and people can continue watching it; I don't care. I do care that news is adequately produced and disseminated, which it currently is not.

 

[Clevinger]

They're not watching opinion shows as news to begin with, Fox News has timeslots dedicated to news reports.

Their "news reports" have opinion as well. Have you ever actually watched Megyn Kelly's show, or America's Newsroom? The only difference those shows have with Hannity's is that they're not a constant steam of opinion.

 

[lo escondido]

Most Americans support NPR, which is publicly funded media, so I think you may not actually have your finger on the pulse of what "most Americans" want. Unless you have some sort of citation for that opinion? Most Americans also support wealth redistribution via a progressive tax, so again, maybe you shouldn't substitute your opinions for those of "most Americans" without some sort of evidence.

I've said NPR is different than what empty vessel is talking about. I have no problem with grants and some support just not the main source. And again I was referring to empty vessel's wealth redistribution not progressive taxation.

Dont make me out to be something I'm not.

A robust publicly funded media is essential to fill this role in a democracy. In my opinion, reasonable people cannot disagree.

Oh great one tell us more on what we must agree.

 

[RustyNails]

They're not watching opinion shows as news to begin with, Fox News has timeslots dedicated to news reports.

Here's how Fox News works:

4 pm, some seemingly stoic news anchor with very serious face: Democrats want the tax subsidies for the oil companies to expire, citing record profits in the last quarter and high gas prices.

6 pm, SEAN HANNITY: OBUMBMA WANTS TO RAISE TAXES ON OIL COMPANIES. TYPICAL TAX AND SPEND DEMOCRAT. NO CLUE WHAT HE'S DOING

Next day, 10 am fox & friends: Did you hear? Obama is raising taxes again...I am scared. I googled oil tax, and found out it will increase our gas prices even more. Why does Obama want to hurt the already struggling middle class?

Next day, get a brand new talking point and repeat it for 24 hours or more. The stoic anchor is not helping when he's bringing in Mr Conservative and Mr Extreme Conservative to the panel and discuss the issues, Beck, Bill O Rielly and other morons are definitely not helping. No one is helping at Fox. All they feed is rightwing hysteria and people gobble it up. But you want to defend that because people have the right to be misinformed. I merely posit that having such rights doesn't mean they have to fulfill it.

 

[polyh3dron]

They're not watching opinion shows as news to begin with, Fox News has timeslots dedicated to news reports.

All those "news" time slots are coordinated and are instructed to use specific language such as "so-called public option" and such. They are also told to push certain talking points that they all magically have the SAME stance on.

edit: beaten by a minute

There's a video on youtube that shows how they do this, but I don't know how to find it.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

If people want it so bad, guess what we already have it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcasting_Board_of_Governors (Governing Body)

Voice of America, a radio and TV network broadcasting worldwide, outside of the US
Alhurra, satellite TV broadcasting to the Middle East
Radio Farda, a radio station targeted at Iran
Radio Free Asia, a radio network broadcasting in Asia
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a radio network based in Europe and the Middle East
Radio Martí and TV Martí, a radio and TV network broadcasting in Cuba
Radio Sawa, a radio station broadcasting in the Middle East

They are also prohibited from being broadcast in the United States (although you can listen/watch to them online).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith–Mundt_Act

Now you can point out that they are part of public diplomacy, but their is ample prove that VOA/Radio Free are pretty good in terms of being actual news organs. Despite this (if you look through the Smith Mundt Article, there is a history of viewing them as propaganda and even comparing them to the Soviet News Agency.

So that is why the idea would never work in the United States. I promise you that it will

Funny enough the far left through a crap fit when Radio Marti was being broadcast from Florida. So it seems the far left has an issue with issue too.

According to a January 10, 2007 episode of the news and commentary program Democracy Now!, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CRE) called for a congressional investigation into the legality of broadcasting Radio and TV Marti over commercial airwaves from southern Florida. The group states that the Bush administration has reached an agreement with two south Florida commercial Spanish language TV and radio stations to broadcast the TV Marti program, which the CRE accuses the US government of illegally paying the station $200,000 to air the Radio Marti program daily for six months, citing that U.S law prohibits broadcasting of propaganda inside the country.

Here's how Fox News works:
.

Rusty,
The Hell!

I though the take here was Shep Smith was good, so you need to include that.

Kidding aside I do think he is good, I really loved when he just flat out told people not to be stupid after the Japan Earthquake and taking Iodine pills, and buying them off the net was insane.

I do think you could do the same mirror of the Fox Schedule with MSNBC just replace certain phrases.

 

[empty vessel]

Oh great one tell us more on what we must agree.

I didn't say you must agree. I said reasonable people could not disagree. You are free to be unreasonable. Listen, it is not my contention that an adequately informed public is essential to a democracy. This is what every political theorist for centuries has said. Nor is it my contention that corporate media organizations do not produce and disseminate news but rather produce audiences for advertisers. That is an empirical fact. That means that private, for-profit entities are not in the business of producing and disseminating news.

That leaves only non-profit entities. These non-profit entities tend to be small and are not ideal, because they tend to have biases towards their private (often corporate) donors. This creates the same kind of situation as for-profit companies in which content is driven by something other than news production and dissemination. And they are so small that, even though the content tends to be far superior to for-profit entities that sell audiences to advertisers, their content is not adequately disseminated. So, no, I don't think reasonable people can disagree. I think people who don't really believe in democracy can disagree. And I think people who believe in democracy but don't understand what is required to sustain one can disagree. But I think neither of those categories of people is reasonable.

If people want it so bad, guess what we already have it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcasting_Board_of_Governors (Governing Body)

Voice of America, a radio and TV network broadcasting worldwide, outside of the US
Alhurra, satellite TV broadcasting to the Middle East
Radio Farda, a radio station targeted at Iran
Radio Free Asia, a radio network broadcasting in Asia
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a radio network based in Europe and the Middle East
Radio Martí and TV Martí, a radio and TV network broadcasting in Cuba
Radio Sawa, a radio station broadcasting in the Middle East

They are also prohibited from being broadcast in the United States (although you can listen/watch to them online).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith–Mundt_Act

Now you can point out that they are part of public diplomacy, but their is ample prove that VOA/Radio Free are pretty good in terms of being actual news organs. Despite this (if you look through the Smith Mundt Article, there is a history of viewing them as propaganda and even comparing them to the Soviet News Agency.

So that is why the idea would never work in the United States

Funny enough the far left through a crap fit when Radio Marti was being broadcast from Florida. So it seems the far left has an issue with issue too.

Those entities are intended to disseminate propaganda, and explicitly so, which is why they are prohibited from broadcasting in the US. It's illegal.

 

[lo escondido]

Now you can point out that they are part of public diplomacy, but their is ample prove that VOA/Radio Free are pretty good in terms of being actual news organs. Despite this (if you look through the Smith Mundt Article, there is a history of viewing them as propaganda and even comparing them to the Soviet News Agency.

So that is why the idea would never work in the United States

Funny enough the far left through a crap fit when Radio Marti was being broadcast from Florida. So it seems the far left has an issue with issue too.

Of course the would have a problem with something that disagreed with their opinions. That's what its about they want something else they agree with and want to harp against something they disagree with (fox).

 

[besada]

I've said NPR is different than what empty vessel is talking about. I have no problem with grants and some support just not the main source. And again I was referring to empty vessel's wealth redistribution not progressive taxation.

Dont make me out to be something I'm not.

No one's putting words in your mouth. If you aren't capable of actually saying what you mean, that's your problem. I'll quote what you actually said:

I (and most American's) think government funded media is just wrong and the opposite of limited government what this country is about.

If you don't mean NPR/PBS, which is government funded media, then maybe you should say what you mean, rather than trying to insert your opinions into the mouths of the rest of America without a hint of evidence.

Again, progressive taxation IS wealth redistribution, and almost certainly the method by which EV would further redistribute wealth. And it's supported by Americans, including the idea of further taxing the rich. When you use the words "wealth redistribution" the numbers slide, but only to about a half and half.

 

[AlteredBeast]

NPR > all.

However, I cannot watch PBS outside of kids shows with my kids and the wonderful documentaries.

 

[RustyNails]

Rusty,
The Hell!
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/stills/ShepSmith_OffTheRails.flv.jpg[img]

I though the take here was Shep Smith was good, so you need to include that. :P

Kidding aside I do think he is good, I really loved when he just flat out told people not to be stupid after the Japan Earthquake and taking Iodine pills, and buying them off the net was insane.

I do think you could do the same mirror of the Fox Schedule with MSNBC just replace certain phrases.[/QUOTE]
Shep is good people, but his panels usually suck and he doesn't point out the hypocrisy all the time. I will take him over the other anchors though. Chris Wallace can do good interviews when pushed, sometimes. Also, pretty sure that people here know that I'm not a big fan of MSNBC at all. I like Rachel Maddow though. <3

 

[PantherLotus]

The premise that the majority of American are against public broadcasting is faulty on its face, without merit, and only the crowd that thinks NPR and PBS are the same things would bother trying to push that myth forward. These people can be ignored, however dangerous they may be to themselves.