Ads, which everyone on here would endorse blocking, so that’s out.
All journalism becomes volunteer work, running off of optional donations, which seems unlikely :D
Or all journalism becomes publicly funded via-taxes. This is probably the optimal option but I think most people would agree that ALL journalism being government funded has a ton of risks.
it cannot be sensationalized. It cannot even veer mildly from the found facts.
it cannot be filled with agenda bias
it cannot hold any false, non peer reviewed information
they have to pay their sources. And They have to pay their sources well. Especially the ones who are expected to uphold to peer reviews (science journalists, I’m looking at you)
There are tons of countries that already have national and local publicly-funded news networks. Is your solution to move every currently private network to a public-funded model?
Cause to me that sounds like it sounds very expensive, and more importantly, very dangerous to give governments such extreme levels of control over information.
The same issue applies to government-run news too. You see it with the BBC as a government owned and funded institution. It’s domestic UK news is pro-Monarchy, pro-Tory, and this is because of how it’s set up.
Private news media, when there’s a lot of it, tends to be less biased in the end because they’re trying to compete with each other, meaning they can’t go too far in one overt political slant. When one person controls more and has a wider reach, that dynamic becomes less important as they gain greater control over where journalists go and what events they cover.
I support public news media, but community-owned papers would avoid the monopolistic issue of either corporate consolidation or a government funded alternative.
I think the best solution would be to just have the best of both worlds, wouldn’t it? We could attempt to create a balanced environment of specially funded public media and nuanced private news companies.
Removing the need for existing newspapers to rely on advertising to keep costs low enough for the consumer to be able to purchase an issue would go very far.
The problem has always been that the academic or “platonic” ideal of journalism as this “objective, 4th estate” that “speaks truth to power” has always been at odds with the costs of doing business. In fact, the first newspapers were owned by Political Parties and wore their affiliations on their sleeves. Switching to advertiser-supported models enabled more independence from political parties in the 1800s.
What’s also true is that most local newspapers (heck, papers in general) are at least on paper, objective in the sense that their journalists are free to pursue and write the stories they want using their professional judgment.
You can avoid the risk of tax-funded journalism by making it so that even though they’re government subsidized they’re still independent. There are multiple potential ways to evaluate which journalistic entities qualify for government funding, all with pros and cons, but it could work.
Here in Finland we have YLE, and it has news, movies/shows, documentaries, radio/podcasts etc. It is funded with tax money, and I consider the two biggest pros to be that news and more are easily accessible for free to anyone and that since YLE isn’t trying to profit from journalism, there are no clickbait headlines. Though, the worst flaw is that goverment-funded journalism is prone to propaganda, and once you control the media, you control the whole country, so people need to be very careful.
You can always have it be publicly funded but managed by a non profit designated by the government, and make it organized in such a way that if a politician or government institution had a problem with some reporting, there’s nothing they can do.
The same concerns about editorial independence and human fallacy apply in the private sector top. There has always been pressure between the editorial, marketing, and journalist parts of newspapers.
I think you’re missing a potential 4th one, though I’m not 100% convinced as to its feasibility, but a Universal Basic Income and greater societal wealth redistribution raises the bottom so much that everyone can easily afford 30 news subscriptions.
Though personally I think more arms length public funding is the better option since the incentives of capitalism often don’t align with the incentives of high quality journalism.
I certainly can’t speak for anyone else, but personally I would be useful in productive ways. I went through a period of every nerds’ dream of staying home and playing video games all the time and it drove me nuts. Yeah, it was nice for a little while, but not having the money to go anywhere or do anything made me look forward to working again. If I’d have had money, I would not have been home very much.
I think/acted similar to you… which is why I think we might all be common minding.
That said, people that aren’t motivated to do good things are most likely motivated to do nothing… so it might not be a big deal if they don’t show up for a job.
TLDR: fewer workers at Burger King probably would t make service worse
Very few people honestly want to do nothing. Even the image of the unemployed pot smoker who watched cartoons all day, maybe that person would find fulfillment in art? Or maybe they’re passionate about something important in their community.
My love for UBI assumes that idle hands will make themselves useful in productive, please or at least non-destructive ways.
There’s still an incentive to work and make more money to better your living situation and contribute productively back to society, but you wouldn’t be as beholden to it.
Another way to think about it was that in the 50s a single worker could make enough to support a family, whereas these days both parents have to work full time. Providing UBI would be a more equitable way of reducing the reliance on work and increase individual families’ health and well being by providing the baseline financial assistance that would allow one parent to take time off work (or both parents to reduce time at work) to better support their family, community, and social structure.
All journalism becomes volunteer work, running off of optional donations, which seems unlikely :D
It’s not quite that simple with PBS or NPR, but that’s the basic idea. Open public funding with no political or corporate control sounds like the safest bet. It’s as viable as people deciding to support it.
Not sure why you’d think “publicly funded” would seem like the “optimal” option. Same thing structurally as “state-run media”, just friendlier phrasing. If we had direct democracy or something, that might be fine, but the fact that it has to run through politicians and bureaucrats with their own interests/agendas, that completely changes the picture. If you have that federally funded in the U.S., that basically just tucks under the executive branch like almost everything else, meaning it’s just managed by the President, with basically only a paper tiger of regulations preventing interference in place.
Well there are 3 alternatives.
Ads, which everyone on here would endorse blocking, so that’s out.
All journalism becomes volunteer work, running off of optional donations, which seems unlikely :D
Or all journalism becomes publicly funded via-taxes. This is probably the optimal option but I think most people would agree that ALL journalism being government funded has a ton of risks.
If I have to pay for it:
If there is a free one with ads:
Wanna regulate? Well. Then. Let’s regulate.
Removed by mod
There are tons of countries that already have national and local publicly-funded news networks. Is your solution to move every currently private network to a public-funded model?
Cause to me that sounds like it sounds very expensive, and more importantly, very dangerous to give governments such extreme levels of control over information.
Removed by mod
The same issue applies to government-run news too. You see it with the BBC as a government owned and funded institution. It’s domestic UK news is pro-Monarchy, pro-Tory, and this is because of how it’s set up.
Private news media, when there’s a lot of it, tends to be less biased in the end because they’re trying to compete with each other, meaning they can’t go too far in one overt political slant. When one person controls more and has a wider reach, that dynamic becomes less important as they gain greater control over where journalists go and what events they cover.
I support public news media, but community-owned papers would avoid the monopolistic issue of either corporate consolidation or a government funded alternative.
I think the best solution would be to just have the best of both worlds, wouldn’t it? We could attempt to create a balanced environment of specially funded public media and nuanced private news companies.
Removing the need for existing newspapers to rely on advertising to keep costs low enough for the consumer to be able to purchase an issue would go very far.
The problem has always been that the academic or “platonic” ideal of journalism as this “objective, 4th estate” that “speaks truth to power” has always been at odds with the costs of doing business. In fact, the first newspapers were owned by Political Parties and wore their affiliations on their sleeves. Switching to advertiser-supported models enabled more independence from political parties in the 1800s.
What’s also true is that most local newspapers (heck, papers in general) are at least on paper, objective in the sense that their journalists are free to pursue and write the stories they want using their professional judgment.
You can avoid the risk of tax-funded journalism by making it so that even though they’re government subsidized they’re still independent. There are multiple potential ways to evaluate which journalistic entities qualify for government funding, all with pros and cons, but it could work.
Here in Finland we have YLE, and it has news, movies/shows, documentaries, radio/podcasts etc. It is funded with tax money, and I consider the two biggest pros to be that news and more are easily accessible for free to anyone and that since YLE isn’t trying to profit from journalism, there are no clickbait headlines. Though, the worst flaw is that goverment-funded journalism is prone to propaganda, and once you control the media, you control the whole country, so people need to be very careful.
Yea that’s precisely it. Publicly-funded media definitely can be the best option, but there’s always risks it can fall into pure propaganda some day
You can always have it be publicly funded but managed by a non profit designated by the government, and make it organized in such a way that if a politician or government institution had a problem with some reporting, there’s nothing they can do.
The same concerns about editorial independence and human fallacy apply in the private sector top. There has always been pressure between the editorial, marketing, and journalist parts of newspapers.
I think you’re missing a potential 4th one, though I’m not 100% convinced as to its feasibility, but a Universal Basic Income and greater societal wealth redistribution raises the bottom so much that everyone can easily afford 30 news subscriptions.
Though personally I think more arms length public funding is the better option since the incentives of capitalism often don’t align with the incentives of high quality journalism.
I love the idea of UBI. But I can’t help but worry I’m wrong.
My love for UBI assumes that idle hands will make themselves useful in productive, please or at least non-destructive ways.
I’m not clear I can justify that
I certainly can’t speak for anyone else, but personally I would be useful in productive ways. I went through a period of every nerds’ dream of staying home and playing video games all the time and it drove me nuts. Yeah, it was nice for a little while, but not having the money to go anywhere or do anything made me look forward to working again. If I’d have had money, I would not have been home very much.
I did that too; it was during Covid :)
I think/acted similar to you… which is why I think we might all be common minding.
That said, people that aren’t motivated to do good things are most likely motivated to do nothing… so it might not be a big deal if they don’t show up for a job.
TLDR: fewer workers at Burger King probably would t make service worse
Eh, the actual problem is that most people are shite.
People. What a bunch of bastards.
Very few people honestly want to do nothing. Even the image of the unemployed pot smoker who watched cartoons all day, maybe that person would find fulfillment in art? Or maybe they’re passionate about something important in their community.
There’s still an incentive to work and make more money to better your living situation and contribute productively back to society, but you wouldn’t be as beholden to it.
Another way to think about it was that in the 50s a single worker could make enough to support a family, whereas these days both parents have to work full time. Providing UBI would be a more equitable way of reducing the reliance on work and increase individual families’ health and well being by providing the baseline financial assistance that would allow one parent to take time off work (or both parents to reduce time at work) to better support their family, community, and social structure.
It’s not quite that simple with PBS or NPR, but that’s the basic idea. Open public funding with no political or corporate control sounds like the safest bet. It’s as viable as people deciding to support it.
Not sure why you’d think “publicly funded” would seem like the “optimal” option. Same thing structurally as “state-run media”, just friendlier phrasing. If we had direct democracy or something, that might be fine, but the fact that it has to run through politicians and bureaucrats with their own interests/agendas, that completely changes the picture. If you have that federally funded in the U.S., that basically just tucks under the executive branch like almost everything else, meaning it’s just managed by the President, with basically only a paper tiger of regulations preventing interference in place.