State Run, Taxpayer Funded, News Service.

[Paendragon]

I shit you not.

Link

Link to CNN

 

[Sean Renaud]

This might be a better idea than my solution which would be no advertising during news programs.

 

[1sickbastard]

Those goddamn big state librulz & their commie-fascist ways!
It's the new world order, next they take our gunz & bibles!

(But it's the state of Indiana and the service is being launched by the Governor, Mike Pence)

That's what I mean! Big gov't is destroying liberty!

(But Gov Pence is a Republican and the GOP holds super-majorities in both chambers of the state legislator.)

Oh, then it's a small gov't initiate designed to spread liberty, freedom & good Christian morality!

 

[Paendragon]

Those goddamn big state librulz & their commie-fascist ways!
It's the new world order, next they take our gunz & bibles!

(But it's the state of Indiana and the service is being launched by the Governor, Mike Pence)

That's what I mean! Big gov't is destroying liberty!

(But Gov Pence is a Republican and the GOP holds super-majorities in both chambers of the state legislator.)

Oh, then it's a small gov't initiate designed to spread liberty, freedom & good Christian morality!

Haha!

 

[Paendragon]

I can't believe either the common Democrat or the common Republican will think this is a good idea.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

I can't believe either the common Democrat or the common Republican will think this is a good idea.

It seems everybody is in agreement that the current method isn't working particularly well.

 

[1sickbastard]

It seems everybody is in agreement that the current method isn't working particularly well.

When the business model behind a 'news service' is dependent on creating and audience to deliver to advertisers, said "journalism" is going to tend toward sensationalism, gossip & confirmation bias. People love salacious scandal, celebrity 'he said, she said' and validation the opinions of the who consume from that particular source. If it happens to be true, so much the better.
Print journalism did exhibit those traits to greater or lesser extents. 24-hour TV 'news' is almost entirely uninhibited by those constraints. It's an entertainment medium with a thin veneer "journalism", but the point is to keep the viewership engaged so they 1) won't touch that dial & 2) will hang around and watch the commercials.

If one want's accurate information and intel, one really must subscribe to an organization which makes it's revenue from providing accurate information, not from advertising.
Or one must become adept at differentiating information from editorializing as well as recognizing organizational bias.

 

[Sean Renaud]

When the business model behind a 'news service' is dependent on creating and audience to deliver to advertisers, said "journalism" is going to tend toward sensationalism, gossip & confirmation bias. People love salacious scandal, celebrity 'he said, she said' and validation the opinions of the who consume from that particular source. If it happens to be true, so much the better.
Print journalism did exhibit those traits to greater or lesser extents. 24-hour TV 'news' is almost entirely uninhibited by those constraints. It's an entertainment medium with a thin veneer "journalism", but the point is to keep the viewership engaged so they 1) won't touch that dial & 2) will hang around and watch the commercials.

If one want's accurate information and intel, one really must subscribe to an organization which makes it's revenue from providing accurate information, not from advertising.
Or one must become adept at differentiating information from editorializing as well as recognizing organizational bias.

And the trick there is you have to somehow separate profits from advertisements. There don't seem to be a whole lot of ways to do that. The only one I can think of other than just trusting journalists to be better is to make it illegal to advertise during news, and then also demand that a 24 hour news channel have 'x' hours of news and that the nightly hour long news on the basic television be news. But that sounds draconic and that many of them might just change their format all together to get around it.

Also I don't recall anything in the Constitution or anything else that even suggested that the government should not be involved in the spreading of knowledge. Freedom of the press is about a lack of government censorship (and despite how it's usually depicted) it's really about speaking out against the government.

 

[phrodeau]

Just about every government agency on every level has a website, and nobody seems to bitch about that.

 

[Que]

I can't believe either the common Democrat or the common Republican will think this is a good idea.

The Democrats have always had that. It is the "public' radio station run usually out of a local junior college and supported at taxpayer expense.

Nationally, this is called "NPR." Or National Progressive Radio.

You have a point though. Traditionallly, Republicans are expected to gather private sector sponsors for advertising in order to have their point of view broadcast.

 

[1sickbastard]

And the trick there is you have to somehow separate profits from advertisements. There don't seem to be a whole lot of ways to do that. The only one I can think of other than just trusting journalists to be better is to make it illegal to advertise during news, and then also demand that a 24 hour news channel have 'x' hours of news and that the nightly hour long news on the basic television be news. But that sounds draconic and that many of them might just change their format all together to get around it.

Also I don't recall anything in the Constitution or anything else that even suggested that the government should not be involved in the spreading of knowledge. Freedom of the press is about a lack of government censorship (and despite how it's usually depicted) it's really about speaking out against the government.

No. The First amendment prohibits, specifically, Congress (but has since been interpreted to mean gov't institutions at any level) from passing laws which abridge (limit) freedom of speech or freedom of the press. There is nothing in there about gov't institutions operating their own press service (like Stars & Stripes, or Voice of America, for example).
Vetting an information source is a bit more tricky. For example, when I want information about current defense establishments, equipment, doctrine, I go to Jane's Defense Weekly, which is a subscription service which, why does have advertising, has an audience which won't put up with bullshit information and generally has access to sensitive intel from both gov't & industry so information can be check for accuracy. Jane's has also spent a great many years working very hard to establish a reputation for accuracy, and their business model, their ability to make money from their subscribers, is very much dependent on that reputation.
Consumer Reports operates in much the same way, but product info & quality isn't the same as political reporting.
C-span is a good source. No ads & dry as Arizona hard-pan, but the journalism is decent & the politicos seem far more candid in their answers as they rightly suspect hardly anyone is watching.
The WSJ is good on business news. the op-ed page is biased, but the business news is about the readership's ability to make money for themselves. For that reason, the business news as well as the reporting on politics which affect business is usually very accurate.
The Economist is very much like the WSJ, but as a weekly, do far more in depth articles and cover the global community, not just the US.
Webservices like breibarts, salon, or the huffington post are highly biased and nearly worthless as accurate sources. At best, if the stories on the same event are reported in multiple biased sources, selecting a few with opposing bias can allow one to glean out actual facts.
It does take time and effort, but the amount of real, actual news that happens every day is astonishingly small. Scanning the headlines for words designed to push emotional buttons, then skipping those articles seems to work pretty good as a method to separate the useful nuggets from the torrents of crap.

Just about every government agency on every level has a website, and nobody seems to bitch about that.

There is nothing anywhere (in the US) which prohibits gov't from having websites, newsletters or what have you. Just so long as one realizes it is a gov't source targeting a specific audience that will likely not be very critical of the parent agency.

 

[phrodeau]

The Democrats have always had that. It is the "public' radio station run usually out of a local junior college and supported at taxpayer expense.

Nationally, this is called "NPR." Or National Progressive Radio.

You have a point though. Traditionallly, Republicans are expected to gather private sector sponsors for advertising in order to have their point of view broadcast.

That's right, your tax dollars are pouring into National Public Radio at a jaw-dropping 5.8% of their budget.

http://cjrarchive.org/img/posts/NPR2.jpg

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The Democrats have always had that. It is the "public' radio station run usually out of a local junior college and supported at taxpayer expense.

Nationally, this is called "NPR." Or National Progressive Radio.

You have a point though. Traditionallly, Republicans are expected to gather private sector sponsors for advertising in order to have their point of view broadcast.

That's National Public Radio, dumbass.

Member stations, for the most part, are funded by programming fees, grants from foundations or business entities, contributions and sponsorships. Typically, NPR member stations receive funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, state and local governments, educational institutions, and the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).

In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from federal, state and local government funding, 10% of their revenue from CPB grants, and 14% of their revenue from universities. While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR's overall revenues. According to CPB, in 2009 11.3% of the aggregate revenues of all public radio broadcasting stations were funded from federal sources, principally through CPB., in 2012 10.9% of the revenues for Public Radio came from federal sources.

For the most part, NPR is supported by it's listeners and private sector sponsors. In fact, NPR is probably less likely to promote the agenda of corporate sponsors, unlike those "Republican" broadcasters who rely almost solely on corporate support through advertising.

 

[Que]

You do not add very well do you? Where does the "Corporation for Public Broadcasting" gets its money?

Wiki:

The CPB's annual budget is composed almost entirely of an annual appropriation from Congress plus interest on those funds.[3] For fiscal year 2014, its appropriation was US$445.5 million, including $.5M in interest earned). The distribution of these funds was as follows:[4]

Just where do you think the Universities get their funding?

Are you under the impression that beyond advertising the corporations that donate do not get lobbying access?

Your chart alone shows far more than what you state as "taxpayer funds." you do know that government has no money that is not taken from taxpayers or borrowed against future collections of taxes, royalties and import duties, right?

I notice you do not even attempt to refute the clearly understood progressive slant of ALL taxpayer funded broadcasting. You protest (incorrectly) that it is a minuscule part of their funding.

If that is so, let Soros fund that little bitty amount.

 

[Que]

That's National Public Radio, dumbass.

Member stations, for the most part, are funded by programming fees, grants from foundations or business entities, contributions and sponsorships. Typically, NPR member stations receive funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, state and local governments, educational institutions, and the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).

In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from federal, state and local government funding, 10% of their revenue from CPB grants, and 14% of their revenue from universities. While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR's overall revenues. According to CPB, in 2009 11.3% of the aggregate revenues of all public radio broadcasting stations were funded from federal sources, principally through CPB., in 2012 10.9% of the revenues for Public Radio came from federal sources.

For the most part, NPR is supported by it's listeners and private sector sponsors. In fact, NPR is probably less likely to promote the agenda of corporate sponsors, unlike those "Republican" broadcasters who rely almost solely on corporate support through advertising.

Closer to accurate than Frodos drivel..

I am aware what the initials NPR nominally stand for, but point to any sentence paragraph or broadcast that serves the interest of promoting the point of view of the majority center-right of the country.

I don't care what a private broadcaster does in the way of being influenced by their corporate sponsors they are allowed to do exactly that. Plenty of corporations support this progressive administration and outlets that pander to the left.

Why is it that NPR with EVERYONES tax money gets to advocate for the left.

You would be complaining if the shoe was on the other foot. Oh wait. That is the point of the thread.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Closer to accurate than Frodos drivel..

I am aware what the initials NPR nominally stand for, but point to any sentence paragraph or broadcast that serves the interest of promoting the point of view of the majority center-right of the country.

I don't care what a private broadcaster does in the way of being influenced by their corporate sponsors they are allowed to do exactly that. Plenty of corporations support this progressive administration and outlets that pander to the left.

Why is it that NPR with EVERYONES tax money gets to advocate for the left.

You would be complaining if the shoe was on the other foot. Oh wait. That is the point of the thread.

The majority are center-right now?

Were they advocating for the left when they banned the use of the term "torture" when talking about the "enhanced interrogation" under the Bush administration because it would be seen as "taking sides"?

Are they advocating for the left when their coverage of the Israel-Palestinian conflict has been simultaneously criticized as biased by both sides? It seems to me that if you're managing to irk both sides of an issue equally then you're probably right about the middle.

Maybe you can point out which of these programs are "liberally" biased and advocating for the left?

News and public affairs
American RadioWorks, provider of documentaries on Morning Edition and All Things Considered hosted by Ray Suarez (American Public Media)
The Diane Rehm Show, public affairs call-in program hosted by Diane Rehm (WAMU)
Fresh Air, interviews with cultural news-makers hosted by Terry Gross (WHYY)
Here and Now, news, current affairs and culture hosted by Robin Young and Jeremy Hobson (WBUR)
Justice Talking, legal issues hosted by Margot Adler (University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center)
Latino USA, Latino issues hosted by Maria Hinojosa (KUT)
On Point, public affairs call-in program hosted by Tom Ashbrook (WBUR)
On the Media, media issues hosted by Brooke Gladstone and Bob Garfield (WNYC)
Science Friday, science issues call-in hosted by Ira Flatow and independently produced
Cultural programs
Ask Me Another, a trivia quiz hosted by Ophira Eisenberg (WNYC)
The Business, film industry news hosted by Claude Brodesser (KCRW)
Car Talk, humorous automotive advice hosted by Tom Magliozzi and Ray Magliozzi (WBUR)
Engines of Our Ingenuity, hosted by John Lienhard, (KUHF)
From the Top, A program showcasing young Classical Musicians between the ages of 8–18
JazzSet, hosted by Dee Dee Bridgewater (WBGO)
Only A Game, sports issues hosted by Bill Littlefield (WBUR)
Piano Jazz, hosted by Marian McPartland (South Carolina ETV Radio)
Says You!, word game show (WGBH)
State of the Re:Union, hosted by Al Letson
World Cafe, a 2-hour music program featuring both recorded music and interviews and live in-studio performances, hosted by David Dye, (WXPN)

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Also, as far as Republican broadcasters relying solely on "private sector sponsors"... That's complete hogwash.

Take FoxNews and NewsCorp for example.

The US government is essentially underwriting Fox News by allowing the Austrialian-American billionaire Rupert Murdoch to evade the taxes that his secretaries and janitors have to pay.

If the right wants to introduce the issue of federal funding of the media into the public debate, they should be prepared to see their own Fox gored. Fox News has been the beneficiary of government largess for years. As far back as 1999, there have been reports documenting how News Corp, Fox's parent company, exploited loopholes in tax laws that permitted them to avoid levies that all other citizens have to pay.

When giant, prosperous, multinational corporations weasel out of their tax obligations, ordinary citizens are the ones who are forced to make up the shortfall. That is effectively a tax subsidy for the corporations funded by you and me and all of the indignant Tea Partiers who claim to oppose special interest favors for the elite.

So who is REALLY being supported by taxpayers? NPR? To an extent, small as it is. FoxNews and NewsCorp? Most definitely. Fox News has been documented to be brazenly one-sided over and over again, yet they receive hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer financed subsidies. The right wants to defund NPR despite the fact that they have utterly failed to demonstrate any real journalistic bias.

 

[Que]

Not confiscating more money is not the same as writing him a check. That is the most tired of all liberal false equivalences.

I haven't seen you castigating the administration for energy department loans and grants to big Obama donors, or the fact that several of his biggest corporate donors pay little to no taxes.

The same way the false comparison is made for oil companies being able to write off an actual business expense as an expense (exploration) being somehow similar to actual checks written b the US government to wind and solar companies and their customers.

Nice job writing it up to try to make that false comparison.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Not confiscating more money is not the same as writing him a check. That is the most tired of all liberal false equivalences.

I haven't seen you castigating the administration for energy department loans and grants to big Obama donors, or the fact that several of his biggest corporate donors pay little to no taxes.

The same way the false comparison is made for oil companies being able to write off an actual business expense as an expense (exploration) being somehow similar to actual checks written b the US government to wind and solar companies and their customers.

Nice job writing it up to try to make that false comparison.

No, those are ALL basically the same thing according to Conservatives. It's actually UD who's flipping the script and talking Republican here. This is mostly the same semantic bullshit I always hate with the difference being in this specific case one person is simply smart enough to game the system.

 

[Paendragon]

The Democrats have always had that. It is the "public' radio station run usually out of a local junior college and supported at taxpayer expense.

Nationally, this is called "NPR." Or National Progressive Radio.

You have a point though. Traditionallly, Republicans are expected to gather private sector sponsors for advertising in order to have their point of view broadcast.

I disagree that college radio is the same as government controlled media. Firstly, there is just not a lot of political talk radio happening at public universities. Secondly, just because Universities get public funding does not mean they can not have student run groups that use that funding that show some sort of opinion. As an example of a traditional conservative ideal in a similar context, go and check and see how many chapels, etc., are at public universities. Students and faculty have a lot of leeway to control their own projects, separation of church and state be damned.

Even if I were to agree that there is a huge liberal slant on NPR, which I can't as I don't listen to it (and a quick Google has shown a bunch of conservative sites saying "yes they do" while a bunch of liberal sites say "no they don't" . . . which just proves I shouldn't comment), I don't think it's the same as a state government run news agency. Liberal or Conservative, the news conference is the only way the government should be participating in the media, directly.

 

[Que]

No, those are ALL basically the same thing according to Conservatives. It's actually UD who's flipping the script and talking Republican here. This is mostly the same semantic bullshit I always hate with the difference being in this specific case one person is simply smart enough to game the system.

Republicans call deductible business expenses "subsidies?" Really?

The only thing he is doing is flipping his lid to try and justify what everyone is aware that NPR leans hard left and it is subsidized (that means someone writes a big, fat, on budget check to them) by all taxpayers.

The laugh is that CPB was started by Lyndon Johnson exactly for the reasons Pence did what he did. It has never strayed from its mission of acting as a watchdog over Republican abuses and an apologist for Democrat abuses.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Not confiscating more money is not the same as writing him a check. That is the most tired of all liberal false equivalences.

I haven't seen you castigating the administration for energy department loans and grants to big Obama donors, or the fact that several of his biggest corporate donors pay little to no taxes.

The same way the false comparison is made for oil companies being able to write off an actual business expense as an expense (exploration) being somehow similar to actual checks written b the US government to wind and solar companies and their customers.

Nice job writing it up to try to make that false comparison.

It's hardly a false comparison.

Taxpayers are footing the bill for running FoxNews indirectly just as much as they are for NPR directly. Personally I would much rather that they get their funding directly rather than using loopholes to avoid paying taxes that they owe, thereby forcing the taxpayer to subsidize their business model and pad their bottom line.

We aren't talking about oil exploration here. We're talking about intentionally funneling income into offshore subsidiaries in order to avoid paying taxes. For example: The most profitable of News Corporation's operations in the 1990s was not the Sunday Times, or its successful satellite television business, BSkyB. It was News Publishers, a company incorporated in Bermuda. News Publishers, in the seven years to June 30th 1996, made around £1.6 billion in net profits. This is a remarkable feat for a company that seems not to have any employees, nor any obvious source of income from outside Mr Murdoch's companies.

If you want to stop federal funding for NPR, then close the loopholes that force the taxpayers to support FoxNews and others (Walmart for example) who take advantage of loopholes to increase their profit margin at the expense of the taxpayers.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Republicans call deductible business expenses "subsidies?" Really?

The only thing he is doing is flipping his lid to try and justify what everyone is aware that NPR leans hard left and it is subsidized (that means someone writes a big, fat, on budget check to them) by all taxpayers.

The laugh is that CPB was started by Lyndon Johnson exactly for the reasons Pence did what he did. It has never strayed from its mission of acting as a watchdog over Republican abuses and an apologist for Democrat abuses.

They certainly call eliminating deductions or even allowing temporary reductions to expire raising taxes. I honestly see no difference here other than you want this really bad.

I don't give two shits what CPB did and I have zero problems with this, go scroll up I was the first person wonder what the big deal with this was.

 

[Que]

I disagree that college radio is the same as government controlled media. Firstly, there is just not a lot of political talk radio happening at public universities. Secondly, just because Universities get public funding does not mean they can not have student run groups that use that funding that show some sort of opinion. As an example of a traditional conservative ideal in a similar context, go and check and see how many chapels, etc., are at public universities. Students and faculty have a lot of leeway to control their own projects, separation of church and state be damned.

Even if I were to agree that there is a huge liberal slant on NPR, which I can't as I don't listen to it (and a quick Google has shown a bunch of conservative sites saying "yes they do" while a bunch of liberal sites say "no they don't" . . . which just proves I shouldn't comment), I don't think it's the same as a state government run news agency. Liberal or Conservative, the news conference is the only way the government should be participating in the media, directly.

At least his idea is open about it being a media outlet that is designed to get his administration's point of view out and available, unfiltered by the news outlets. They are still free to take any and all of that material, just as they can any press release, and rebut it, chop it, edit it, and report the facts as they see them and express whatever opinion they wish.

I get that it sounds Orwellian, and if it was in lieu of, not in competition with, private news you would have a very valid point. Since they are not going to be able to crowd out other outlets, their effectiveness at controlling the story will be limited.

Given that the technology exists for any government agency (all of whom have press departments) to present themselves with good lighting and sound, it is surprising that more do not. We are long past the time when the only way a person or entity could hope to influence the press was a faxed press release, and hope they are lazy enough on a slow news day to simply print it as is.