What do people think of government-funded Independent News ?

I was thinking that one of the main reasons we have problems with the Media, is that the Media no longer reports news for the sake of news being important or relevent, but instead, only report news that gets ratings (and thus, money). In other words, if its not someting sensational, its not reported because it doesnt bring in money. Its also why they put on these crap talking head shows where people shout at each other. Because it brings in cash.

So, I thought, what if there was an Independent (i.e. non-partisan) News channel that was funded not by ratings, but by the government? It would have to be either very very very very non-partisan, or simply MADE to be exactly 50/50 bi-partisan, however you want to look at it. It would report nothing but news 24/7. There would be no "commercials" and thus no sponsors and no ratings. It would simply receive funding to run. There would have to be some kind of open policy regarding the stories it runs. Everything that they choose to run and choose not to run would HAVE TO BE subject to scrutiny by the public, either via a website or some other method. The key positions (editor, talking heads, etc.) would have to be approved, when being hired, by a bi-partisan committee in congress, to ensure that they are impartial and non-biased. The news they report would not be any different that news anyone else COULD report, but the advantage to this channel would be that they could cover a lot more actual news, and it would be as unbiased as possible.

The main concern would be setting it up with enough safeguards that it cannot be controlled by the agenda of the dominant party in congress/white house, so that it doesnt turn into the propaganda channel...i.e. Fox News.

Would the Dems go for this idea or would they oppose it?

Look how far right NPR has pulled since the propaganda campaign of this administration began. The people who pay for it always want to control the content, and government funded anything ultimately reflects the party in power.

news stations should be funded by donations from individuals, with caps, so that the programming isn't influenced by government corruption OR corporate corruption. AND, news stations should get price breaks so they can do their jobs without worrying about the cost.

That is why it should be govt funded.

inevitably have their hands in that great "independent" coverage.

on that one KB.

Frankly, I like news just fine the way it is now. With the Internet, I can find out anything, fact check, whatever. I know who I trust, and who I don't.

And anybody can do the same, if they care about the country or politics.

But the big problem for me is, who decides that the station has been "fair and balanced"? It's alright if FAUX claims to be. We know better, and as more people find out, they will lose their ratings. But a station with no controls, just sucking up the taxpayer dollar, I don't know. What is to prevent the reporters and anchors from inflicting their own biases upon the rest of us if we can't cut off their money by refusing to watch? What makes anybody think it won't be controlled by the government on the "pays the piper" principle? And who, exactly, is running the government right now??

we can look at PBS as an example of a station I would consider middle of the road and that * cabal tried to change it.

It seems that even with safeguards the * cabal rewrites the laws....to fit their purpose. (This is accross the board)

I was thinking of something like the BBC perhaps an American Affiliate on US soil.....the BBC covers the news and doesn't seem to get caught up in the BS...

But I could be wrong...

Media, by its very definition, can never be truly independent. Why ? Because as long as "people" make decisions about what facts to include and exclude relative to a given story, there will be bias. We all write, create, and communicate from within our own sphere of bias because we each have a different world experience.

About the only hope for independent news would be to have robots record events and show then un-edited for each to determine what is relevant and what is not. Something like C-SPAN with out the commentary.

MZr7

I think that would solve it.
Two editors.
Two directors.
Two talking heads.

Whatever it takes to force the issue.

Each human being involved in the process will introduce some element of bias. What may not seem important to the two or twenty a different group of two or twenty will find has significance and should have been included. Like I said the media, and specifically reporting, is the transcription and communication of events. Since that transcription and communication process is handled by humans there will always be bias and the introduction of error, no matter how hard we try or how pure our motives are. In some respects this is very similar to the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principal from quantum physics but applied to the distribution of bias in human interpretation.

Not that we shouldn't try...

MZr7

I didn't mean "no bias at all", I really should have said "no blatent party-line bias".

*peace.

MZr7

Yeah, it would probably be cheaper than Fox. More honest too. I mean then we would know we are being propogandized and can take it in stride.

Whoever Pays the Piper calls the tune.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

How "independent" is it if it's government funded?

It would just end up being a government mouth piece.