Journalism being private run has created the situation we’re in though.
Comment on So much for that dream.
NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 10 months agoWell there are 3 alternatives.
Ads, which everyone on here would endorse blocking, so that’s out.
All journalism becomes volunteer work, which seems unlikely :D
Or all journalism becomes publicly funded via-taxes. This is probably the optimal option but I think most people would agree that ALL journalism being government funded has a ton of risks.
NathanielThomas@lemmy.world 10 months ago
NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
There are tons of countries that already have national and local publicly-funded news networks. Is your solution to move every currently private network to a public-funded model?
Cause to me that sounds like it sounds very expensive, and more importantly, very dangerous to give governments such extreme levels of control over information.
NathanielThomas@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Again, private interests have the tendency to extreme levels of control over information.
They do mega mergers so that three companies end up owning all the news. And can, therefore, control it.
Famously, this one: www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGIYU2Xznb4
Trekman10@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
The same issue applies to government-run news too. You see it with the BBC as a government owned and funded institution. It’s domestic UK news is pro-Monarchy, pro-Tory, and this is because of how it’s set up.
Private news media, when there’s a lot of it, tends to be less biased in the end because they’re trying to compete with each other, meaning they can’t go too far in one overt political slant. When one person controls more and has a wider reach, that dynamic becomes less important as they gain greater control over where journalists go and what events they cover.
I support public news media, but community-owned papers would avoid the monopolistic issue of either corporate consolidation or a government funded alternative.
TheSaneWriter@lemmy.thesanewriter.com 10 months ago
You can avoid the risk of tax-funded journalism by making it so that even though they’re government subsidized they’re still independent. There are multiple potential ways to evaluate which journalistic entities qualify for government funding, all with pros and cons, but it could work.
hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 months ago
Here in Finland we have YLE, and it has news, movies/shows, documentaries, radio/podcasts etc. It is funded with tax money, and I consider the two biggest pros to be that news and more are easily accessible for free to anyone and that since YLE isn’t trying to profit from journalism, there are no clickbait headlines. Though, the worst flaw is that goverment-funded journalism is prone to propaganda, and once you control the media, you control the whole country, so people need to be very careful.
NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Yea that’s precisely it. Publicly-funded media definitely can be the best option, but there’s always risks it can fall into pure propaganda some day
Trekman10@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
You can always have it be publicly funded but managed by a non profit designated by the government, and make it organized in such a way that if a politician or government institution had a problem with some reporting, there’s nothing they can do.
The same concerns about editorial independence and human fallacy apply in the private sector top. There has always been pressure between the editorial, marketing, and journalist parts of newspapers.
ricdeh@lemmy.world 10 months ago
The problem with this is that a government could simply decide to cut the funds for public media if there are views contrary to the executive branch and thereby establish a degree of control. An approach to mitigating this attack vector would be to do it like Germany does, collecting a special fee independently of the taxes that goes directly to the news organisations. This means that the parliament cannot control or withhold the funding of the public media unless there were a major legislation change, which would have to be the will of the majority of the population.
masterspace@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
I think you’re missing a potential 4th one, though I’m not 100% convinced as to its feasibility, but a Universal Basic Income and greater societal wealth redistribution raises the bottom so much that everyone can easily afford 30 news subscriptions.
Though personally I think more arms length public funding is the better option since the incentives of capitalism often don’t align with the incentives of high quality journalism.
dx1@lemmy.world 10 months ago
All journalism becomes volunteer work, running off of optional donations, which seems unlikely :D
It’s not quite that simple with PBS or NPR, but that’s the basic idea. Open public funding with no political or corporate control sounds like the safest bet. It’s as viable as people deciding to support it.
ricdeh@lemmy.world 10 months ago
In Germany, the independence of publicly funded media is guaranteed by the payment of a special fee that is collected independently of the normal taxes, and is distributed directly among the public media institutions. No parliament has to approve any funding, the only attack vector would be to change the legislation behind this financing but that would require a parliamentary majority and would therefore have to be the will of the people.
dx1@lemmy.world 10 months ago
That’s better than “all media is run by the Fuhrer” I suppose, but probably still preferable for people to have the choice of which to support.
Smoogs@lemmy.world 10 months ago
If I have to pay for it:
If there is a free one with ads:
Wanna regulate? Well. Then. Let’s regulate.