Contrary to what the title suggests, this is not a discussion of states owning media in their respective territories. The question posed is whether nations should run government news services. This is not suggesting that they should own or control all media, just whether the governments should own their own news services to provide information to their populations. Note: This includes both in print and online.
Private enterprises use slander, bribes, espionage and all around Lies to further there agenda, IE Fox news. The government does the same, so its state media or private media, which sounds better to you?
If the government is for the people, and the media is for the people, then it follows that the media is for the government! I think someone said something like that in reference to the BBC. This may not be a debate on individual territories, but British media is more-or-less all I have to go on, and that experience tells me that the BBC is a lot better than Sky or ITV. When it comes to newspapers though, it's best to see the state keep their distance simply because papers seem more obliged than TV news to take sides when it comes to politics. Often people buy papers simply because of their views (ie- The Guardian is meant to be a left-leaning paper for example).
Yes. There should be a State Media as well as Private Media. Ideally the State Media would be mildly more controlled than say the BBC.
There should be a mixture of both in order to get a more accurate view of the news. Although the private media should be the more dominate. http://www.article19.org/data/files...land-article-19-report-on-media-ownership.pdf and any thoughts on the Pigouvian theory of media?
Yes, ideally in concert with private media a state media should exist which must follow strict opinion defict statutory rules. Essentially it should be purely fact based in as far as possible. Other private media should be able to hold bias, but only if publically annonced. (Like newspapers in the UK)
Yes there should be. The private companies can just show you really stupid shit and idiotic opinions like what Fox N. The problem is that some people believe becouse they are easily brainwashed through say TV or the internet or anything private media. But the national mediaican be simular but in like a national newspaper should just give you info on news and other fun stuff but just the info not an opinion.That's for the recieving person to decide. It should have educional,culturally good info not useless shit like reporting what celebrity A ate on monday evening or something like that.
But how am I going to stalk my favourite celebrities if the newspapers aren't constantly reporting every detail of their incredibly fascinating lives?
Although global reports indicates countries with private media are more free, like say Norway which is like almost if not all private media. While countries with state media are evil regimes that slaughter everyone.
Even America has stated funded media in the form of NPR. It's not rare for that sort of thing because it's quick and easy. Not need to get investors, no need to set up a major company. Just pour a hundred million in and you've got a news network.
NPR gets about 2% of its revenue from public grants. Most of it's funding comes from viewers like you, thank you.
True, it is less "state funded" than it used to be. Actually it could probably drop its public grants anytime it needed too.
Completely agree. Both corporate media and state media have their own biases and they usually defer to power (the government and business interests).
NRK is pretty nice, no commercials, reliable news and the show Lylihammer. Bad thing is that it's taken out of the taxes (aprox 200 usd a year) but you get no commercials whitch is nice. State media isn't that bad.
