Government funded news are not inherently unbiased. But hypothetically let’s say it is unbiased. The whole reason why a bailout is needed in the first place is because not enough people voluntarily watches these news. Is the next step to ban all other sources of news and make government news the only source of information? That doesn’t sound like a great path to venture down to.
No, that’s not a great path, but that’s also not what’s happening here.
The other side of that equation, given that the consumers of news aren’t willing or able to fund it, is advertiser supported news, which is also not unbiased, and which has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster.
The public funding a public good, and private, international media companies not benefiting from it, is exactly where this needs to go.
Well you still haven’t addressed the most important problem that I’ve mentioned which is the fact currently no one seems to want to watch these news and that’s why they are asking for government funding in the first place. Consumers clearly wants corporate news for whatever reason. What’s the point in funding something that no one wants? This is a chicken and egg problem, if most people in the country actually wants unbiased source of news then they will seek for such sources over the biased ones. As a result advertisers would change their behaviour to favour news that’s more unbiased. Unfortunately people has voted with their viewership that they don’t actually want unbiased news, but ones that are scary, outrageous, or tells them exactly what they want to hear. I can’t see how adding more government funding to the equation is gonna change people’s behaviour.
Government funded news are not inherently unbiased. But hypothetically let’s say it is unbiased. The whole reason why a bailout is needed in the first place is because not enough people voluntarily watches these news. Is the next step to ban all other sources of news and make government news the only source of information? That doesn’t sound like a great path to venture down to.
No, that’s not a great path, but that’s also not what’s happening here.
The other side of that equation, given that the consumers of news aren’t willing or able to fund it, is advertiser supported news, which is also not unbiased, and which has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster.
The public funding a public good, and private, international media companies not benefiting from it, is exactly where this needs to go.
Well you still haven’t addressed the most important problem that I’ve mentioned which is the fact currently no one seems to want to watch these news and that’s why they are asking for government funding in the first place. Consumers clearly wants corporate news for whatever reason. What’s the point in funding something that no one wants? This is a chicken and egg problem, if most people in the country actually wants unbiased source of news then they will seek for such sources over the biased ones. As a result advertisers would change their behaviour to favour news that’s more unbiased. Unfortunately people has voted with their viewership that they don’t actually want unbiased news, but ones that are scary, outrageous, or tells them exactly what they want to hear. I can’t see how adding more government funding to the equation is gonna change people’s behaviour.