• Striker@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Journalism student here. Tbh in my experience I have come to the conclusion that news stations should never be state owned. I think state funding for news is good but I think the best solution is a non profit ngo group running the news. When the government owns the news they can change the news and manipulate what facts get shown as is the case with the BBC.

      • Trekman10@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It scales. Privately owned community newspapers might have a bias, but if there’s one in every town with 1,000 people, then exponentially that increases the amount of different agendas of each of those private entities, and they can sort of cover each other’s weaknesses. It’s the concentration and consolidation that’s the issue.

        Of course, private industry inherently wants to merge and consolidate, as is the nature of capitalist competition. So either you continually break up mergers or develop a public community newspapers that are independent of any government - its debatable how independent the BBC or CBC are.

        • icydefiance@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your second paragraph is severely understated. It completely invalidates your first paragraph.

          In the USA there are 4 corporations that own pretty much all TV news, whether it’s local or not. Add another 2 corporations to cover almost everything else on TV.

          Online news is a little more diverse, but it’s heading in the same direction.

          And the government won’t break up those corporations because they’re too big for that to be possible. It’s too late. Whether the corporations use regulatory capture or just a massive team of lawyers to make antitrust lawsuits prohibitively expensive, they simply can’t be broken up.

          • Trekman10@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It doesn’t invalidate it. It’s accurate that for a time, privately owned, for-profit newspapers would (and did in the past) result in a multitude of viewpoints since the editorial stances will are inherently more diverse between 20 newspapers instead of 2.

            Whether or not the current vertical and horizontally integrated media companies will be broken up is irrelevant to the fact that it would result in a more diverse and freer press.

            A tax funded solution would most likely take the form of a single entity. If 4 entities dominating the press is wrong, then 1 is even worse.