RE: Should Government Subsidize The News?

RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

philosophy -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 10:08:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: janiebelle Precisely. Under free market conditions, advertisers are the ones primarily in the position to bully newspapers. Under a very scary NWO it would be the government. Anyone who thinks that is a good idea might consider picking another country. j .....er.......so if i read you right, you think it's ok for advertisers to bully news organisations but not government? Surely a better way is for no-one to try to set the news agenda?

shannie -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 10:42:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: janiebelle The concept of a media that is not in a position to claim that it's independent loses what little legitimacy that media may still have. The relationship is already so incestuous that it almost doesn't matter. If the government subsidizes the corporate media, the government influence (derived from that subsidy) will be undoubtedly be exercised for the benefit of the mega-corporations that are running the political show. And the corporate media is already under that precise influence. But there IS information outside of that profit-driven loop, and that's what really matters. I remember when the corporate-media kings were grappling in their towers with the question of whether we, the public, should or shouldn't be allowed to see the cell-phone-video of Saddam Hussein's hanging. But their grappling was rendered moot by Youtube....

Termyn8or -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 10:43:48 AM)
"You claim you think Fox is biased and you can't actually call it news, yet you watch it "quite a bit". So why do you waste your time watching something you don't feel is giving you the real news?" boi, if I may call you that for short, there is a reason. The best metaphor I can come up with right now would be a criminal trial. Before the trail, the litigants or their representatives file what is called a motion of discovery. Each side must make their case known so that the other may respond effectiviely. I don't want to go into how they cheat on this, it happens all the time. But the base premise is to know the opponent. Know their point of view. Just like if you ever did debates in school, you knew what the topic was and that your opponent did have certain valid points, points which you must abate. It is better to be prepared than to look like an idiot. For example, on 09/11/01 if had left for work without stopping for coffee I would have not known what had happened. How could I then make any comment on it ? The way I see it is that all major news outlets amount to what one poster described somewhere as "status quo defenders" and as such I don't see all that much difference. However some take the micro view rather than the macro view and can split hairs like this. Show me a news source with cameras inside a congressman's office showing him taking bribes,,,,, errrrr, lobby money. To that I will give considerable weight. But we don't have that. The point is that if you really believe your point of view and want to promote it, you must know as much as possible about the opposition. This enables one to respond more effectively, rather than get blindsided and lose because the opponent is well prepared. I don't care if a fight is over someone winning a bluff in a poker game or raping your sister, he who is better prepared is more likely to win. Sure that is a primative example, because a true argument requires forms of finesse that don't exist in the example, but the principle is the same. Now before this gets too too long, to address the OP. No, I don't think it should be the governement. I am fully aware though that a solution must be found. Even if all corporate waste was eliminated and a moderate amount of ads could help, these reporters do not work for free. Many are traveling alot, and you can't expect them to ride a bicycle to India. What's more I am sure it would be hard to get a competent journalist for three bucks an hour. The only idea I can come up with right now is to put all news sources on a certain,,,,,,,, I don't know the word, server ? domain ? All pay a fee to join and all are welcome no matter what. Then they get paid based on hits. Where the money comes from is ultimately going to be us, so chin up to it. So basically then with your ISP you get the news package or not. It would be cheap with millions of people paying for it. That should supply the revenue. Those who refuse the package are relegated to CNN and the likes. Whatever is left. But 200,000,000 subscribers times $3.95 a month is what, $790,000,000 ? And that is per month. The profits would be divvyed up somewhat like royalties on intellectual property. Just like they have "https" sites for secure transactions now, maybe there would be "httpn" sites. When you order your internet service, decide if you want it or not. Now that would affect other things, for example the links people put in here. Quoting would be allowed but it have to be abridged, but full quotes are already shunned here. So it wouldn't make that much difference. It's just that the links would not work for people who don't have "httpn" access. Between that, and the fact that we should never give up the old printing press, it could work. In fact it might spawn more small news outlets, in print only. This might just result in some diversification. That is but one suggestion, but I think that most with a dime's worth of businesss sense knows that the printed media industry is being hurt by the internet. Of course something must be done, but not by the government. And it would be nice to keep big money's grubby little hands off of it this time. Think of that, largely subscriber supported. Minimal ads. That would require that we let the industry fail, are they too big to fail ? But if funded in the way I suggested, big money might find itself unable to buy it, like they did last time. I think it's a pretty good idea if I do say so myself. I did not say a great idea nor an excellent idea or the perfect idea. But at least it's an idea. To really know, someone has to bust the numbers down and figure out how the money is distributed. I'll stop now, because that would be a good subject for another thread and I won't be hijacking this one. Like I said I am trying to break the habit. Though standing unaccused at the moment, I am aware of it. If I have more thoughts on the matter I will start a thread, but suffice it to say that I am 10000000000000% against letting the government in on it. We argue they (or we) should have control over the companies they must bail out with our money, and now we would have to argue an exception to our own position in the original argument ? Don't take the bait, the government needs to stay out of it, and there is one added advantage. The government would no longer have the priveledge of issuing or denying licenses to media outlets. At least some people here must agree that this is a good thing. T

rulemylife -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 11:01:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi You claim you think Fox is biased and you can't actually call it news, yet you watch it "quite a bit". So why do you waste your time watching something you don't feel is giving you the real news? Comedic value. It cracks me up. It's kind of like watching Colbert, but he knows he's putting on a comedy show. It's so much funnier when you have a reality Colbert show where the participants are being unintentionally hilarious.

ienigma777 -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 11:08:03 AM)
Hello ALL; it is not the 'News Media'...it is 'INFO-TAINMENT'...government doesn't need to openly announce 'Control' over the media...The 'Rush Rooms' of the Clinton era...where Limbaugh's republican views were 24/7 on every major, market in the US, his Books, mainstream, The Rush Rooms, (Coffee shops, Cafes, all tuned, with speakers aloud to saturate the entire Cafe patrons, at lunch time,); the saturation of (what I call) the NO NEWS - NEWS now abounds. The dumber the nation, the better for government control. Fox tells us what they want us to know...not what is in actuality...just what they (the magement, owners) decide what we should know...to formulate our thinking, no other oppositional views are presented.....and you all debate, just the information you are given.....what good is that? The Iraq war, is for the most part...not in the News...but just a few months ago, all you heard was how Bin Laden is coming to your house with his band of terrorists, to bomb your babies in their beds. This went on and on, for eight years piror. Nothing of the economy failing, or the impeding economic meltdown...NOPE, Bin Laden was the focal point, and our Bush needed more money to wage his war on terrorism. Eight Years 24/7 constantly (never mind that the news-media was showing 20 year old archival footage of Bin Laden shooting his ak 47). You people are incredible.

Venalismihi -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 11:10:14 AM)
I would rather they subed the news than made it.

HK47 -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 11:18:10 AM)
Under no circumstance, or set thereof should any government body " buy "the media, for no more than daily handout sheets, or any other reason. Common practice these days, and it violates press neutrality. It's been common practice since the 1980's, to the point where government was writing the news for many outlets, and providing crib sheets for a host of others. The Fourth Estate must maintain a neutral position, though in these economic times, once thriving papers are folding. The Boston Globe is pretty well gone, one of the last influential and independent papers out there. Print is going under all over the US, and will publish on line. It's becoming the age of the Ken and Barbie news readers, and all else goes online. Pathetic.

thishereboi -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 11:23:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi You claim you think Fox is biased and you can't actually call it news, yet you watch it "quite a bit". So why do you waste your time watching something you don't feel is giving you the real news? Comedic value. It cracks me up. It's kind of like watching Colbert, but he knows he's putting on a comedy show. It's so much funnier when you have a reality Colbert show where the participants are being unintentionally hilarious. OK then, as long as your enjoying it, it's all good.

janiebelle -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 11:37:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: janiebelle Precisely. Under free market conditions, advertisers are the ones primarily in the position to bully newspapers. Under a very scary NWO it would be the government. Anyone who thinks that is a good idea might consider picking another country. j .....er.......so if i read you right, you think it's ok for advertisers to bully news organisations but not government? Surely a better way is for no-one to try to set the news agenda? Perhaps the "best" way would be for no one to try to set the "agenda", but I don't think that any enterprise involving people lasts long in "agenda set free" mode. I guess my point is this- it's bad enough the way it is- one of the few ways I might imagine it worse is for the government to be given a vested interest. j

janiebelle -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 11:41:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shannie quote: ORIGINAL: janiebelle The concept of a media that is not in a position to claim that it's independent loses what little legitimacy that media may still have. The relationship is already so incestuous that it almost doesn't matter. If the government subsidizes the corporate media, the government influence (derived from that subsidy) will be undoubtedly be exercised for the benefit of the mega-corporations that are running the political show. And the corporate media is already under that precise influence. But there IS information outside of that profit-driven loop, and that's what really matters. I remember when the corporate-media kings were grappling in their towers with the question of whether we, the public, should or shouldn't be allowed to see the cell-phone-video of Saddam Hussein's hanging. But their grappling was rendered moot by Youtube.... "Almost doesn't matter" goes right along with "what little legitimacy it may have". The point irt the authoritarian BS about what folks should or shouldn't see is excellent; it's a great boon for a free people to have that kind of access. Any population that can't be trusted by its government to decide which info/images they care to "consume" is governed by a body that needs some serious bloodletting, imo. j

philosophy -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 11:43:54 AM)
FR ...so in the end it comes down to a matter of trust. Does one trust industry, with its need to provide value to share holders but no responsibility to wider society; or does one trust government, admittedly a more unwieldy instrument but one that does have a responsibility to wider society?

janiebelle -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 11:55:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy FR ...so in the end it comes down to a matter of trust. Does one trust industry, with its need to provide value to share holders but no responsibility to wider society; or does one trust government, admittedly a more unwieldy instrument but one that does have a responsibility to wider society? I trust those who earn it. In my experience, that leaves very few industries, and ZERO governments. In this information age, only a fool would "trust" only one source, as those sources have differing opinions at best, and malicious agendas at worst. j

ienigma777 -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 11:57:30 AM)
Well, that is exactly what they do, the news is made, the events that shape how we will live our lives...but the news presented is (Like This)..."in No. Las Vegas, an unidentifed woman of hispanic origns lead her dog to a neigbor's lawn to leave droppings." ...the city council has been called to emergency session to address the droppings." or..."the complilation of Frank Sinatra's 'Lost Songs' will be released this coming Saturday at a bargain price of $ 8,000.00 for the collector's edition. Now you can own every single song ever recorded in history." However, world decisions are not for us to know, these decisions are only for the government elite, to decide, in secret, and only then anounce only the part they want us to know, because it's a matter of national security. During the Bush reign, and 9-11, the aftermath, the creation of HomeLand security, the Patriot act, the Bush presidential papers of non-accountibility.....no one, ever drew any analogoies to the Reigstage, the Emergeny Laws and the enabling acts of the Hitler/nazi reign. BUT, when Bush the greater decided on Iraq one, the media had no problem, showing a ranting Saddam, alongside in split image, a ranting Hitler. Now, if you were to research the speeches of Hitler...and the Speeches of Bush...you will find exactly the very same message (only one in German, the other in English)....that being, for the most part, of patriotism, such as, protecting our children from the threat of terror, protecting our HomeLand, "If you are not with me, you are against me." etc, etc. Government per se needs no control over the news media...for one thing, the news is an oxymoronic statement. Those that sponsor the news, that are in league with their party agendas is what controls the news. They put up the money, if the correspondent says what they don't want him/her to say, then they pull out the money, and then the program faces extinction. The owners of the networks are fascists. Money rules...in Vegas, a major Hotel Casino has shut down a new building expansion of a mega resort...the Bahai Arab consortium yanked the funding. I guess Macau, and the Bahai indoor ski resort, took pirority over getto vegas. The bailout giveaway, to Chysler, 80% owned by an american holding, investment magement company, and 20% owned by a German company, is wanting more stolen American Taxpayer Dollars, GM, going Bankrupt, Bank of America wants 35 billion or it shuts down. The government now wants joint ownership of the businesses it will fund, that is Fascism. It was the plan, years ago, before Bush, the coming of the Bush regime was the catalist to bring this about. Just ordering 'I want 700 billion dollars'...and he gets it. whose to pay...we are. Did we have a say in the matter...no. Accountibility for the Iraq bebale, spending of trillions of dollars, and we have...presendial papers excluding any accountibility. Mr. Obama will just follow along, as he cannot do anything to correct or alter the process. AND...you people are worried if the government should control the news media. You didn't hear of anything even remotely addressing our economic turmoils, for 8 years of Bush government, just and only about Bin Laden, taliban, al queada, Saddam. And now,.... it's that mystery hispanic woman with her disentry pooch.

philosophy -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 12:02:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: janiebelle quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy FR ...so in the end it comes down to a matter of trust. Does one trust industry, with its need to provide value to share holders but no responsibility to wider society; or does one trust government, admittedly a more unwieldy instrument but one that does have a responsibility to wider society? I trust those who earn it. In my experience, that leaves very few industries, and ZERO governments. In this information age, only a fool would "trust" only one source, as those sources have differing opinions at best, and malicious agendas at worst. j ...fair enough. So, what's your opinion of the BBC for instance? Funded, indirectly, by government but with massive safeguards to prevent government interference. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it happens rarely enough for each occasion to be reported by other media. Every sitting government complains that it is biased against it......doesn't matter if the government is left or right wing, they still think the BBC is unfair to them. Which to my mind is high praise indeed and suggests the BBC is doing its job right. It is not funded by advertising either. So, an example of a media outlet that doesn't strictly fall into either of the definitions we've been using...it's not government controlled, nor is it beholden to advertisers. What's your take on that?

Termyn8or -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 12:36:40 PM)
FR What amazes me is that nobody picked up on what I said. If the media is allowed to develop into the net almost completely, the government will have no power to license nor delicense it. Doesn't that mean anything, after people were up in arms about Chavez refusing a renewal to a TV station that supported forces invading their country ? Calling him a dictator and all that. Read the license for a TV station in this country and you will see that we are even more strict. T

HK47 -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 12:51:27 PM)
No doubt about it, the profession has taken major hits, two basically canned Gulf Wars, nearly made for video game. Keep the coffins, flag draped off the air, out of print. Embed the journalists, by all means, and give them something "neat" to share: like what its like to be in a tank. What the devil did those powers that be think ? Or did they bother with even that ? "The SCUD Stud' from the first go round was replaced with the living , breathing war crime Bush the Younger fondly called RumsStud ? That's not war , it's manipulation, and in Rummy's case, it's likely in breach of the Geneva Conventions .... The media made them. There's both the sorrow and the pity. They did so while turning a blind eye to a deficit that would have Midas in tears, an it put the American future in hock. While we still have troops in Iraq, who are still dying, and others are injured, that long ago " Mission accomplished" stunt leave a bitter taste, because War is no game, and not a photo op for that lone member of the "Champagne Squadron ". An accomplished mission with no exit strategy ? The press dropped that ball too.

kdsub -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 12:56:42 PM)
Maybe I don't understand but if the government is only going to provide newspapers a tax break what is the problem. They would have no individual control over a particular newspaper would they? I mean they could not remove or apply a separate tax rate on an individual paper who they did not agree with?... Or do I have it wrong? Butch

CruelNUnsual -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 1:41:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Maybe I don't understand but if the government is only going to provide newspapers a tax break what is the problem. They would have no individual control over a particular newspaper would they? I mean they could not remove or apply a separate tax rate on an individual paper who they did not agree with?... Or do I have it wrong? Butch If you think that is as far as they will go, good luck. Obama is running GM, wants to run Chrysler. The government wont take back TARP money from banks that object to the controls that the government is now trying to force on them. Whether its through the tax code or legislation, this administration wants the power to run anything they see fit to run.

janiebelle -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 1:43:17 PM)
The BBC is like any other network, run by people with corporate or government linked agendas, that is no more there with an interest for "truth" than the Cartoon Network. "Agenda Free Reporting", "Truth", and other such fairy tales just don't exist in the stanglehold of government controlled airwaves. The internet is the closest thing we have to uncontrolled media. It's changed the way people can, and do, choose to view the world. Instantaeous transmission, zero censorship before the fact, widely available for the sending and receiving of boatloads of data...the world, she is a changin', and the TV networks should thank their lucky stars that they have the advantage of pervasiveness to save them from the fate of the print news. j

CruelNUnsual -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 1:48:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: janiebelle The BBC is like any other network, run by people with corporate or government linked agendas, that is no more there with an interest for "truth" than the Cartoon Network. "Agenda Free Reporting", "Truth", and other such fairy tales just don't exist in the stanglehold of government controlled airwaves. The internet is the closest thing we have to uncontrolled media. It's changed the way people can, and do, choose to view the world. Instantaeous transmission, zero censorship before the fact, widely available for the sending and receiving of boatloads of data...the world, she is a changin', and the TV networks should thank their lucky stars that they have the advantage of pervasiveness to save them from the fate of the print news. j Just remember that the "uncontrolled" internet has no journalistic standards or ethics to guide it. While believing everything you read / watch was never a good idea, believing ANYTHING you read/watch on the internet from an unverified source isnt a good idea.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125