Comment on So much for that dream.

• NENathaniel@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

  source

  • NathanielThomas@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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

    source

    • Trekman10@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

      source

      • ricdeh@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I think the best solution would be to just have the best of both worlds, wouldn’t it? We could attempt to create a balanced environment of specially funded public media and nuanced private news companies.

        source

        • -> View More Comments