Should there be a news company funded using taxpayer dollars?

[ALiberalModerate]

Do you even listen to yourself? Ridiculously PC means they are liberal. It is liberals who are ridiculously PC, not conservatives. By the way, FOX News has Democrats and liberals on all the time and even pays millions of dollars to employ Democratic and liberal contributors, such as Juan Williams, just to name one of many. Does this mean that FOX News is unbiased? It doesn't mean that NPR is unbiased either.

Ridiculously PC does not mean liberal, it just means that they overtly politically correct. You obviously do not listen to NPR much. I have been convinced of the merits of various conservative positions over the years on NPR shows like On Point, Marketplace and others, more than I have on any other media outlet.

 

[Moderate Right]

Ridiculously PC does not mean liberal, it just means that they overtly politically correct. You obviously do not listen to NPR much. I have been convinced of the merits of various conservative positions over the years on NPR shows like On Point, Marketplace and others, more than I have on any other media outlet.

Now let's see. It is liberals who are ridiculously politically correct and not conservatives. Did Trump get elected because he was ridiculously politically correct? Now since it is liberals who are ridiculously politically correct and NPR that is ridiculously politically correct, what does that mean? Also, it is Republicans who were out to cut the funding of NPR. Why would they do that, because NPR is not biased?

 

[falcata]

I am usually for the small government...but not on this.

There should be one - and only one - federally government funded, national news service. It would be just on the internet (tv is dying and too expensive anyway). It would be run by the private sector - but funded strictly by the government.

It would have zero commercials and accept zero private funding (so no PBS-style network) and it would be VERY cheap to operate, relatively speaking - $5 million tops.

And don't worry about reporters/journalists. Don't sent out news crews to cover events - totally unnecessary. Just review all the dozens and dozens and dozens of different news sources from all over the nation/world (tv, newspaper, internet) and base the reporting on those.
Have a summary of the news every 10-15 minutes. No interview shows or news 'shows'...just read the damn news. And only include major sports/entertainment/weather stories. There are a billion sources for those things now.

And the reporting should be STRICTLY FACTS...no guesstimates or opinions or assumptions.

And forget getting the public's reaction to things. The public are idiotic for the most part - they know squat. Ask 10 'men/women on the street' about something and you will get 8-10 different answers.

Just report the verified facts as they come in.

How about a radio service? and honestly the TV aspect is already well established in many areas.

A great aspect about our support of National Public Radio and PBS affiliates is that they are so independent in their production. In my area WVIA is the best programming hands-down and this is because of its position as a public entity. They don't have to cater to shareholder interest and focus on what is going to garner the most revenue or viewership. Both the station and TV channel provide insightful and meaningful programming, unlike even network television which is filled with monotonous sitcoms and mind-numbing reality shows. Though honestly speaking there have been some good shows to come out in the past few years on certain channels. Not to mention both of these entities have fairly well developed websites.

What blows me away the most is how relatively uncostly they are in comparison to other asinine projects our government funds.

I agree with so much of what your saying, but in my eyes we already facilitate it with what we already have. Perhaps the main difference being the format. However context of news stories and how it is presented in briefs is if anything the most effective implementation of censorship and the shaping of peoples interpretations. In many ways it is better to have largely qualitative coverage that actually allows individuals to digest and personally evaluate context rather than having a plain presentation of what is fact.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

The US can't even do fair and equal Universal Healthcare without tearing itself apart - fix that first before trying to do genuinely unbiased, taxpayer funded broadcasting.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Now let's see. It is liberals who are ridiculously politically correct and not conservatives. Did Trump get elected because he was ridiculously politically correct? Now since it is liberals who are ridiculously politically correct and NPR that is ridiculously politically correct, what does that mean? Also, it is Republicans who were out to cut the funding of NPR. Why would they do that, because NPR is not biased?

Because Republicans think everyone is biased. They are always bitching and whining about any coverage that isn't propaganda for them.

If being PC makes NPR liberal, then does assholes for hosts that shout down guests they disagree with make a media source conservative? That is kind of dumb metric you got going. You wrote earlier:

NPR is a left wing liberally biased partisan hack.

Is NPR very PC in how their correspondents say things? Yes, just like every other major media network. Including Fox News outside of its opinion shows / hosts.
They are not some "liberally biased partisan hack" though. I don't know how they could be more even handed in their coverage. They routinely give conservatives hour long interviews where they are able to talk about their ideas and points of view on various issues, and unlike Fox, no NPR host ever even so much as even talks over a guest, regardless of that guest's politics. Anyone regardless of their politics knows they can go onto NPR and be given an opportunity to talk about their views.

 

[Moderate Right]

Because Republicans think everyone is biased. They are always bitching and whining about any coverage that isn't propaganda for them.

If being PC makes NPR liberal, then does assholes for hosts that shout down guests they disagree with make a media source conservative? That is kind of dumb metric you got going. You wrote earlier:



Is NPR very PC in how their correspondents say things? Yes, just like every other major media network. Including Fox News outside of its opinion shows / hosts.
They are not some "liberally biased partisan hack" though. I don't know how they could be more even handed in their coverage. They routinely give conservatives hour long interviews where they are able to talk about their ideas and points of view on various issues, and unlike Fox, no NPR host ever even so much as even talks over a guest, regardless of that guest's politics. Anyone regardless of their politics knows they can go onto NPR and be given an opportunity to talk about their views.

Having a government controlled media is just stupid and begging for corruption. How would you like it if Trump turned Breitbart or FOX News into the government run news media? And, we already owe 20 trillion dollars. No need to add more on to it. We need to be cutting expenses, not adding on more. No media should be getting a dime from government, federal or local.

 

[shrubnose]

Did you ever hear of NPR and PBS?

 

[RetiredUSN]

No, Juan Williams was fired from NPR because NPR is ridiculously PC. Conservatives are on NPR all the time.

I listen to NPR every day here in Norfolk & VB, and it hosts a overwhelming amount of left leaning guests.

 

[joG]

The problem with news corporations such as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC is that they focus too much on little stories (yeah it's sad that a mom would let her daughter be raped and killed but let's be honest, it's an isolated incident). I personally don't mind little stories as long as they are part of a bigger issue. For example the 15 year old girl in Ohio who's in police custody for killing her abusive father. She could be in jail and not be released until she is 21. It is part of a bigger issue that juveniles from abusive families harsh penalties. Profit news stations also focus almost solely on the mainstream party and almost never the third parties or even candidates who aren't in the lead (such as Bernie Sanders).

In my opinion, the news companies focus too much on trying to grab your attention and not enough on actual news.

An example of a taxpayer funded news station is BBC.

I thought that NPR was taxpayer paid for. Besides, you can watch France24, BBC or any number of other taxpayer funded English language news stations. In English I should have thought media information availability is fine. The real problem seems in education, personal information selection and interpretation.

 

[joG]

I know it is not a trick question, but reality puts a twist on it. In 1977 the Church Senate Committee found 400+ CIA agents/assets planted in MSM inside the USA. Those agents/assets are paid and that is gov't funded. Since no action was taken by the gov't and CIA budgets have multiplied by many factors, one must assume logically that the number of agents/assets have multiplied accordingly. What do they do in a newsroom? The same thing the KGB did in Russian newsrooms, for sure. Control the narrative. I don't think gov'ts should have anything to do with MSM, including funding because they always attach strings to "control the narrative." Just my opinion mixed with some reality.

Believe it or not. Dictatorships and autocracies have quite a bit better information control of flow and opinion than you give them credit for.

 

[joG]

Did you ever hear of NPR and PBS?

Yes.

 

[Ahlevah]

State funded and state run are not the same thing.

Technically, no, but as a practical matter that's another animal entirely. Nothing happens without money. Basically, if you grab them by the balls with purse strings, their hearts and minds will follow.

 

[jamesrage]

The problem with news corporations such as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC is that they focus too much on little stories (yeah it's sad that a mom would let her daughter be raped and killed but let's be honest, it's an isolated incident). I personally don't mind little stories as long as they are part of a bigger issue. For example the 15 year old girl in Ohio who's in police custody for killing her abusive father. She could be in jail and not be released until she is 21. It is part of a bigger issue that juveniles from abusive families harsh penalties. Profit news stations also focus almost solely on the mainstream party and almost never the third parties or even candidates who aren't in the lead (such as Bernie Sanders).

In my opinion, the news companies focus too much on trying to grab your attention and not enough on actual news.

An example of a taxpayer funded news station is BBC.

No we shouldn't. Being tax payer funded doesn't mean its free from bias.

 

[trouble13]

Does this mean you prefer corporate media such as NewsCorp which seems to be providing our present administration with exactly the propaganda Trump wants to see?


Reading the comments provides ever more evidence that a large segment of the American population sees any information which contradicts their True Beliefs as being biased - biased because it fails to conform to their tightly-held convictions on every subject from Russian hacking to Clinton criminality to racial prejudice to Christian persecution. One might begin to agree with the righties about the 'failed public education system' simply because so many Americans are so freakin' ignorant about the world - and absolutely certain that their views are the only ones with any validity.

Who do you figurate that corporate run news media is protrump?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Gaius46]

There is absolutely no doubt that NPR leans to the left. Heck, even Juan Williams was too far right for them.

So the definitely of a hack is anything with a bias? Or just anything with a left bias?

 

[Moderate Right]

So the definitely of a hack is anything with a bias? Or just anything with a left bias?

Anything with a bias. That is why I asked if we really wanted Trump to turn Brietbart or Fox News into the official government funded media outlet. I don't and I don't want the left biased NPR to be either and, since we already owe 20 trillion dollars, the last thing we need to do is to spend even more money than we are already.

 

[Gaius46]

Anything with a bias. That is why I asked if we really wanted Trump to turn Brietbart or Fox News into the official government funded media outlet. I don't and I don't want the left biased NPR to be either and, since we already owe 20 trillion dollars, the last thing we need to do is to spend even more money than we are already.

Everything has bias. There is no such thing as a completely unbiased source. By that definition then every news source is a "hack."

Bias alone is not a justification to discount something. It's just one piece of the puzzle in determining whether something is true or not.

 

[Moderate Right]

Everything has bias. There is no such thing as a completely unbiased source. By that definition then every news source is a "hack."

Bias alone is not a justification to discount something. It's just one piece of the puzzle in determining whether something is true or not.

While that is true, I don't want the government funding a biased news media and I don't want to add even more on to the national debt in doing so. Since, as you admit, no media are completely unbiased, then none should get federal funding. It's that simple. I mean, look at government agencies. I'll pick on the DOJ and the EPA. Under Obama they were biased to the left and under Trump they are going to be biased to the right. Is that what we really want from the media - NPR being the government funded media when Democrats are in power and Fox News being the government funded media while Republicans are in power? Do we want another version of Russian Television, where the government controls what the media reports? No thanks. Let the media do their own thing without government funding and hopefully Americans can figure out who is biased and who is not. The left will always think left leaning media are unbiased while the right will always think that right leaning media are unbiased, and hopefully those in the middle are smart enough to know that they are all biased and are capable of sifting through that mess.

 

[Gaius46]

While that is true, I don't want the government funding a biased news media and I don't want to add even more on to the national debt in doing so. Since, as you admit, no media are completely unbiased, then none should get federal funding. It's that simple. I mean, look at government agencies. I'll pick on the DOJ and the EPA. Under Obama they were biased to the left and under Trump they are going to be biased to the right. Is that what we really want from the media - NPR being the government funded media when Democrats are in power and Fox News being the government funded media while Republicans are in power? Do we want another version of Russian Television, where the government controls what the media reports? No thanks. Let the media do their own thing without government funding and hopefully Americans can figure out who is biased and who is not. The left will always think left leaning media are unbiased while the right will always think that right leaning media are unbiased, and hopefully those in the middle are smart enough to know that they are all biased and are capable of sifting through that mess.

I listened to an interesting interview with a CBP - Corporation for Public Broadcasting - executive after writing the post you responded to while out running errands. CPB has a 450 million dollar budget, give or take a couple million, and half of that is given away as grants to local broadcasters who largely don't have enough advertising revenues to support their operations, in many cases because the populace they serve is poor, which also means the locals depend on over the air broadcasts because many of them are too poor to have broadband.

CBP funds PBS to the tune of about 20 million a year, that's a drop in the bucket and does produce lots of worthwhile programming - especially children's programming. It seems to me to be money well spent.

As to NPR I have no idea how that costs us but honestly I listen to NPR regularly and don't see much of a slant one or they other.

CPB's board btw is required, by law, to have at least 4 members of each party on it, which means regardless of administration there is always a 5-4 split between democrats and republicans.

 

[DA60]

While that is true, I don't want the government funding a biased news media and I don't want to add even more on to the national debt in doing so. Since, as you admit, no media are completely unbiased, then none should get federal funding. It's that simple. I mean, look at government agencies. I'll pick on the DOJ and the EPA. Under Obama they were biased to the left and under Trump they are going to be biased to the right. Is that what we really want from the media - NPR being the government funded media when Democrats are in power and Fox News being the government funded media while Republicans are in power? Do we want another version of Russian Television, where the government controls what the media reports? No thanks. Let the media do their own thing without government funding and hopefully Americans can figure out who is biased and who is not. The left will always think left leaning media are unbiased while the right will always think that right leaning media are unbiased, and hopefully those in the middle are smart enough to know that they are all biased and are capable of sifting through that mess.

I disagree somewhat.

The masses are mostly idiots...has been proven time and time again. They are not called the 'ignorant' masses for nothing. They would not be able to choose which news sources are the least biased if you put a gun to their heads. They will just choose the one that says what they want to hear.

And it is flat out impossible - imo - to have a remotely unbiased, news service when it is being either run by bureaucrats (who tend to be left leaning - listen to NPR 5 days in a row and it should leave no doubt which way they lean - though they are somewhat subtle about it) or by 'free market' types who really just pander to their sponsors (and thus can be easily bought).

A privately run, internet news service that is paid for strictly by the government (with no commercials or donations allowed) is the best chance of a reasonably unbiased news source. The key is to choose the right individual(s) to run it...a well respected, professional, relatively unbiased, news person.
Besides, just make it strictly fact-based with no programs (like interview or news 'shows') - just the news+important weather/sports/entertainment news being repeated over and over - and no opinions, assumptions or interviews. Just the collecting and presenting of proven facts.
Do this and there is little room for bias.

Plus, an internet news service would cost peanuts - less than $5 million; with all it's sources simply being the dozens and dozens of present news sources that are in newspapers, tv and the internet.

This is the only way - that I can possibly imagine - that you would have a chance at truly unbiased reporting.

Plus, it would be dirt cheap (federal budget wise)....what harm is there to at least try it?

 

[Hawkeye10]

Journalism should be owned by non profit NGO's not corporations, and none of the money should come from government so long as government is incompetent and corrupt, and maybe not ever.

 

[Moderate Right]

I listened to an interesting interview with a CBP - Corporation for Public Broadcasting - executive after writing the post you responded to while out running errands. CPB has a 450 million dollar budget, give or take a couple million, and half of that is given away as grants to local broadcasters who largely don't have enough advertising revenues to support their operations, in many cases because the populace they serve is poor, which also means the locals depend on over the air broadcasts because many of them are too poor to have broadband.

CBP funds PBS to the tune of about 20 million a year, that's a drop in the bucket and does produce lots of worthwhile programming - especially children's programming. It seems to me to be money well spent.

As to NPR I have no idea how that costs us but honestly I listen to NPR regularly and don't see much of a slant one or they other.

CPB's board btw is required, by law, to have at least 4 members of each party on it, which means regardless of administration there is always a 5-4 split between democrats and republicans.

Sounds like the Supreme Court. But, there is a lot of difference between which party ideology controls that fifth vote. That's why the Republicans stymied Merrick Garland. Even though he was a so called moderate, he was a moderate that could change the court from being 5-4 conservative, to 5-4 liberal. In other words, bottom line, he wasn't really a moderate if he turned the court over to being liberal instead of conservative. Now the left is doing the very same thing. While you probably can't argue that Gorsuch is a moderate, whether he is or not doesn't really matter because he still turns the court back over to a 5-4 conservative lean and the left is terrified of that prospect and still would be if Trump had nominated a conservative "moderate".

 

[Moderate Right]

I disagree somewhat.

The masses are mostly idiots...has been proven time and time again. They are not called the 'ignorant' masses for nothing. They would not be able to choose which news sources are the least biased if you put a gun to their heads. They will just choose the one that says what they want to hear.

And it is flat out impossible - imo - to have a remotely unbiased, news service when it is being either run by bureaucrats (who tend to be left leaning - listen to NPR 5 days in a row and it should leave no doubt which way they lean - though they are somewhat subtle about it) or by 'free market' types who really just pander to their sponsors (and thus can be easily bought).

A privately run, internet news service that is paid for strictly by the government (with no commercials or donations allowed) is the best chance of a reasonably unbiased news source. The key is to choose the right individual(s) to run it...a well respected, professional, relatively unbiased, news person.
Besides, just make it strictly fact-based with no programs (like interview or news 'shows') - just the news+important weather/sports/entertainment news being repeated over and over - and no opinions, assumptions or interviews. Just the collecting and presenting of proven facts.
Do this and there is little room for bias.

Plus, an internet news service would cost peanuts - less than $5 million; with all it's sources simply being the dozens and dozens of present news sources that are in newspapers, tv and the internet.

This is the only way - that I can possibly imagine - that you would have a chance at truly unbiased reporting.

Plus, it would be dirt cheap (federal budget wise)....what harm is there to at least try it?

The true idiot masses are the ones on the far left and on the far right. They have been hopelessly brainwashed. I'd like to think the ones in the center think much more for themselves and are above being a member of the idiot masses. No one will ever change the ones who have been brainwashed by their ideologies. I see that on DP time and time again.

 

[ocean515]

Governments of all shades left and right have complained over the years about the perceived lack of undying support from the BBC for their policies.

The ideological foundation of the BBC is well known. Your sweeping generalization is hardly sufficient to overcome this fact.

 

[cpwill]

I disagree somewhat.

The masses are mostly idiots...has been proven time and time again. They are not called the 'ignorant' masses for nothing. They would not be able to choose which news sources are the least biased if you put a gun to their heads. They will just choose the one that says what they want to hear.

And it is flat out impossible - imo - to have a remotely unbiased, news service when it is being either run by bureaucrats (who tend to be left leaning - listen to NPR 5 days in a row and it should leave no doubt which way they lean - though they are somewhat subtle about it) or by 'free market' types who really just pander to their sponsors (and thus can be easily bought).

A privately run, internet news service that is paid for strictly by the government (with no commercials or donations allowed) is the best chance of a reasonably unbiased news source. The key is to choose the right individual(s) to run it...a well respected, professional, relatively unbiased, news person.
Besides, just make it strictly fact-based with no programs (like interview or news 'shows') - just the news+important weather/sports/entertainment news being repeated over and over - and no opinions, assumptions or interviews. Just the collecting and presenting of proven facts.
Do this and there is little room for bias.

Plus, an internet news service would cost peanuts - less than $5 million; with all it's sources simply being the dozens and dozens of present news sources that are in newspapers, tv and the internet.

This is the only way - that I can possibly imagine - that you would have a chance at truly unbiased reporting.

Plus, it would be dirt cheap (federal budget wise)....what harm is there to at least try it?

Just to point out, you aren't going to get presentation of facts without bias, because A) the process of selecting which stories are important imports bias and B) any attempt to apply meaning to data imports bias.

What we need is honest bias, or competing biases to avoid groupthink and blindness.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk