Should the US have a "National News Network"

[Chris]

Akin to say the BBC in the UK or CBC in Canada?

 

[jfuh]

We already do. It's called PBS.

 

[t125eagle]

PBS is not a national news network like the BBC is. the BBC is controlled by the government and PBS is a pubically funded station.

to answer your question, NO,it should not. it would infringe upon the freedom of the press, as the news is an extention of that.

 

[aquapub]

Government cheese, privately manufactured cheese.

Government housing, private housing.

Public schools, private schools.

Public transportation, private transportation.

Like everything else, NO, we do not need the government taking on anymore roles...especially not the federal government, especially when we already have a meaningless liberal mouthpiece funded by tax dollars-PBS, especially not when every government station you can find is anything but fair and balanced.

Remember the only embedded network that had to be removed from a warship during the invasion of Iraq for blatant propagandizing against the troops? That would be the BBC. There are an ocean of other partisan outrages from this left-wing noise machine too.

 

[jfuh]

PBS is not a national news network like the BBC is. the BBC is controlled by the government and PBS is a pubically funded station.

to answer your question, NO,it should not. it would infringe upon the freedom of the press, as the news is an extention of that.

Not quite true, PBS recieves federal funding.
Source
AS well as the fact that PBS is owned entirely by CPB aka Corperation for Public Broadcasting which is under federal control.

 

[PeteEU]

the BBC is controlled by the government

Not true. Only thing the goverment does is to fund it by collecting what americans would call a tax to pay for it. The goverment has no control over content in any way or form, nore any control over hireing or fireing of people employed by the BBC.

 

[jujuman13]

Quote (nore any control over hireing or fireing of people employed by the BBC.)

Not exactly true.

Employees of the BBC are hired / fired by the BBC.

However, the governing board of the BBC is appointed by the Government of the day in the UK.

IMHO while it is good to have an open minded Radio / Television broadcasting service, the BBC seems to be heavily pro-Labour and very definitely Anti-Jewish / Israeli.

I find that ITN are more evenly matched when it comes to Political reporting.

 

[PeteEU]

Quote (nore any control over hireing or fireing of people employed by the BBC.)

Not exactly true.

Employees of the BBC are hired / fired by the BBC.

However, the governing board of the BBC is appointed by the Government of the day in the UK..

Corrrect, however does the governing board have any major influence (if any) on the news or news programs? They cant send down a memo and say from now on we only support the goverments policy on political matters and the news line has to reflect this. Can you say this of Fox News and its "leaders"? Not to mention the regulations and laws in place to prevent any political influence on content at the BBC.

The original accusation was a negative comment on that the BBC was "controlled" by the goverment and as far as I read it, it was an attempt to paint the BBC as the goverments mouthpiece.. and it simply is not.

IMHO while it is good to have an open minded Radio / Television broadcasting service, the BBC seems to be heavily pro-Labour and very definitely Anti-Jewish / Israeli.

Pro labour? The BBC are usualy the first these days to slam Blair and Co for various policies especialy on Iraq. If anything the BBC often goes out of its way to be the goverments watch dog. But then again if we look at the TV news market in the UK, not many channels love Blair and will take any chance they can to slam his sorry *** for anything. Even a supposed ally in Sky News often turns on him these days. Even during Labours own party confrence, Sky News jabbed Tony a few times.

As for Anti-Jewish/Isreali... anyone who is remotely critical of that nation is slammed as "anti jew" "anti semite" and fear that a news organisation actually reports from the other side of the conflict....Does the BBC report from the palestinian side of the conflict, hell yes, its basicly the only news organisation in the english speaking western world that does! When has reporting from both sides of a conflict suddenly gotten to be a bias for one or the other side? And the "muslim" side of the conflict has also accused the BBC of pro Isreali bias more than once.

I find that ITN are more evenly matched when it comes to Political reporting

Hmm are we watching the same news? ITN is not very fond of Isreal for one thing, but I do agree that thier reporting on local issues might be a bit more balanced, but that aint saying much if you compare to the US media market. But then again ITN provides a lot of material to CNN these days too.

Although Trevor MacDonald is my all time favourite anchor.. just dunno, he has this peacefull, authorative feel to him at all times.

 

[Chris]

I am by no means against private ownership. Private ownership provides a better product/service to the customer in the vast majority of industries. Entertainment news such as sports and Hollywood gossip should be left to the hands of private owners.

I feel however that important national or international news is not something that should be "sold" but rather provided as an "educational service". In Canada we get American networks like CNN in addition to our own CBC. With its spiffy graphics on the background screen, emotionally charged music whenever a “victim” or “evil doer’s” pic is shown, the rapid fire recap of the hours top stories, etc there is no contest that CNN is the more entertaining watch. But is entertainment what news should really be about?

Profit, not quality of information, is the bottom line for networks like CNN, FOX News, NBC, etc. If a story about Michael Jackson’s child molestation trial, the disappearance of some college girl vacationing in Aruba, or a feature report on Scientology garners more viewers and higher ratings it will get more air time. While certainly interesting, these and similarly sensational stories, are not that important or relevant in the greater scheme of things and take away valuable air time from much more important issues.

I rarely if ever see CNN do stories about environmental issues, education quality and costs to students, affordability and access to health care services, housing and development projects, workplace safety, or god forbid international news about anything other than Iraq or the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Likewise any personal biases that the owner may have are bound to translate into its programming. For example Rupert Murdoch, founder and CEO of News Corporation, of which FOX News is a division, is very pro-Israel. http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-news-corporation.html

 

[Morrow]

Media is a funny thing, the only way to ensure it is reliable is if it is not linked to any sort of interest, corporate, government, ideological. But then… whose left to report?

News should just be information, to that extend I wouldn’t mind if the government could have a single access point which disseminated all information pertaining to itself everyday. But I wouldn’t like a news network, or anything that could be used as a tool for propaganda. Because it only takes one person in the chain to sway a report one way or another.

 

[aquapub]

NPR today provided a perfect example of why we DON'T need public (i.e., liberal) media.

Dian Rheams was discussing Iraq with one of their reporters, who was making every possible negative point about Iraq and Bush, about the recent disbanding of a brigade of Iraqi police due to them being infiltrated with criminals, terrorists, and death squad guys.

Now when we assemble these security forces, we are going to be using polygraphs, and having experts on staff who can identify frauds, criminals, and terrorists.

How did this "objective" public news source refer to the change in tactics? "Yet another Bush blunder."

We would've never won WWII if every time we had to adjust our tactics to take on the enemy better, the media called it "yet another FDR blunder."

They also regurgitated the media lie that Bush never went in with a plan, and a whole host of other DNC distortions.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-i...we-did-go-plan.html?highlight=york+times+plan

We DON'T need anymore left-wing noise machines (which is always what they turn out to be)-especially at taxpayer expense.

Let the market do its thing. Find a source you know is conservative and one you know is liberal. The free market WILL deliver both sides of the debate without the government getting involved.

 

[Mach]

NPR today provided a perfect example of why we DON'T need public (i.e., liberal) media.

That's insane. NPR always strives to present all sides, has conservatives, liberals, and non-partisans contribute. It's designed and run that way, for a reason...to present information.

The difference is this.

If there is a news organization that delivers information, as close as possible to the truth, and you have a party in power that is distorting that truth, then yes, any truthful news organization will be perceived as "against that party", be it liberal, conservative or green. This is the standard "labeling" of anyone who speaks out against you, as evil/bad. No, information is neither, it's neutral, and required to make informed decisions.

If you disagree with information being presented truthfully and often, then you support some form of government other than a free democracy.

-Mach

 

[Captain America]

We already have a government controlled network here. It's called FOXNews. :rofl