I like COVID 19

[watisthis]

Help me understand what nation in the world has news media with worldwide reach but no government involvement; neither through funding nor through vetting of personnel. Are there any?

Point is the US is the only nation with worldwide 24hr news channel(s) that are not supplemented, screened, or controlled in any way by the USG. Left v. right arguments are not based on government influence.

Obviously the question was not clear.

Is the question 'does American news have forms of political party involvement and influence?' That's debatable, I would say every newsroom has subjectivity some more than others.

The US does have newsrooms funded by gov't grants, such as Radio Free Asia and Voice of America who have editorial independence and pretty strict rules against coverage interference.

Sponsored

 

[Burkey]

Rant allowed. It's a political thread on an internet car forum...

Point is the US is the only nation with worldwide 24hr news channel(s) that are not supplemented, screened, or controlled in any way by the USG. Left v. right arguments are not based on government influence.

A man with business interests is a private citizen. You can buy or establish a media outlet just as you can buy or establish a webpage. In so doing, you can exercise your 1st Amendment rights free from formal government relationships.

I don’t disagree with the ideas you’re presenting.

My primary objection occurs when a person takes a MAJORITY share of the vast array of “networks” and then presents his “news” as if it were anything more than opinion pieces designed to obfuscate and misrepresent facts in order to further their business interests.
The title of “news” might more adequately be represented as “the facts as seen from our very narrow field of view, altered, arranged and shown across a vast majority of sources to give you, the unwitting public, the impression that our position is wholly supported, realistic and without rival”

We accuse China of suppressing information, yet a largely monopolised media in a democratic society isn’t that far removed from the basic concept.

 

[Shadow277]

Dude, you are the red herring. Did you forget how you started this thread? Lmao

no u

 

[Gregs24]

Looks like ancient history to me, Venezuela is hardly a republic, Ethiopia? Really? USSR? A Republic in name only.

If you don't like the definition don't blame me.

The definition is for how the country is administered not the political ideology.

US fits the definition, it doesn't define the definition however (subtle difference)

 

[Caballus]

I’m not quite sure that I understand what’s going on here.

Can I have a little rant here?

The UK Govt. sets the cost and collects the fees. You can opt out.

This isn’t the same as the Aussie model where every taxpayer contributes directly to the government through taxes, with no provision for opting out. (Works out around AUD $80 annually or ~ USD $45)
This doesn’t mean that the government has ANY say in the reporting provided by these outlets.

To use the Aussie example, where the majority of the media hold a right-wing bias (predominantly Murdoch owned) and the government is of a RW persuasion, the ABC is one of the very few media outlets that actually presents coherent reporting of facts and also runs a program dedicated to pointing out where the media (including their very own journalists) get it wrong.

Of course, the right-wing accuse the ABC of “leftist” reporting but this is simply because they are sitting in an echo-chamber of right wing Murdoch media. Anything that disagrees with their perceptions MUST be left-wing by default.

Meanwhile, those to the far left argue that the ABC isn’t on their side either...

Regardless of any of that, what you most certainly don’t want is one man with significant business interests being left in charge of all of your media.

Revisit the baseline.
- Centralized government versus decentralized government
- U.S. believes strongly in the former; UK subscribes to the latter
- UK form of governance is far more intrusive, and by American standard, far less conducive to individual freedoms than the U.S. form of governance.

- Beyond approaches to COVID, control over media provides another example
- The US government has no control over our major news outlets (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc)
- VOA and the like are, and have always been, overt tools of the state, built and used for public diplomacy

- Setting the cost and collecting the fees is the core function of any business--the government does that for BBC
- The government also retains the right to screen certain BBC journalists
- Citizens cannot opt out of paying for BBC unless they opt out of their TV tax altogether (TV tax is common across Europe, as is dog tax. No TV; no TV tax. No dog, no dog tax. Claim no religion, no religious tax--UK doesn't have that one. The TV tax people ride around in vans with detection devices to catch cheaters.)
- So, how free from government influence is this form of press?

Now, contrast that to Mr. Murdoch and similar moguls
- A private citizen built a business designed to deliver a product to customers
- That product is paid by advertisers who pay Mr. Murdoch (or name your outlet owner) to have access to his clientele
- Conservative clientele encourage conservative reporting
- Liberal clientele the opposite
- If people stop watching one or the other, it goes out of business, so it continually adapts

I've had the occasion to interact with senior executives in several media outlets. They all emphasize that they are a business. They have a code of ethics to abide by (and laws), each of which are open to interpretation, but ultimately they are money making businesses. Much like athletics; want it to change, control it with your wallet by turning the channel.


I don't like any of our "main stream media," primary two being Fox and CNN. However, I don't blame them for how they are and I would rather they be free than associated in any way with the state.

 

[Caballus]

If you don't like the definition don't blame me.

The definition is for how the country is administered not the political ideology.

US fits the definition, it doesn't define the definition however (subtle difference)

It's like a constitutional monarchy without a constitution and whose monarch is a figurehead. Appearances...

Republic of the Philippines is missing from the list...

 

[Gregs24]

If it is from the BBC it should be ignored

On what basis - fake news ?

Let's get a few things straight here.

Fake news is where the reported news is either materially untrue or modified in such a way to make it misrepresent the true news

Bias is where either by omission or manipulation the story is made to seem different from the true news - this can be for political or other reasons

The item I have re posted below is none of those.

The BBC have quoted an eminent, appropriately qualified, US professional who has expressed an opinion. The BBC role in this is minimal (factual reporting of a quote) and is neither fake, nor biased, but factual. Prof Levi has expressed an opinion based on verifiable fact (therefore not fake) and has included examples of states that have done well and others that have not, therefore not biased.

In addition you cannot criticise me, the BBC, nor Prof. Levi. I have quoted the BBC (factually and directly by copy and paste) who have, as explained above, quoted Prof. Levi (factually and directly) and Prof. Levi has expressed a professional opinion from his appropriate recognised area of expertise on the subject.

You, nor anybody else, can claim fake news / biased news / political interference just because you don't like it or it differs from your opinion. You and others can disagree with it, based on your knowledge and understanding, but the latter part is crucial in qualifying the value of your opinion. I am not a nuclear physicist and so my opinions on nuclear reactor performance are worth the square root of jack shit compared to a professor of nuclear physics. I also hasten to add I have NOT expressed an opinion of Prof. Levi's quotes - merely posted them, I am not an expert in his field and so my opinion would be unqualified and invalid. I do like to hear the opinions of people who are qualified to give them, which is why I posted the original item so that other forum members could also benefit.



The US federal system of government, which delegates broad powers to individual states, has proven to be both a blessing and a curse. In good times, it allows local leaders to experiment individually with various public policy solutions, testing out best practices that can then be adopted across the nation.

In the case of a deadly pandemic, however, a patchwork response can be inadequate - and result in avoidable deaths and economic disruption.

"Every governor is making decisions on their own," Levi says. "Some are making good decisions; some are not."

He points to governors like Gavin Newsom of California and Jay Inslee of Washington, who took early steps to close schools and issue shelter-in-place orders that have resulted in a slower spread of the virus in their populations.

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine has also received praise from many quarters for his decisive early moves that at the time were viewed by some as too drastic.

Health officials say most major US metropolitan areas were going to be hit has hard as New York City has been. That, they said, may not end up being the case.

Some states are working hard to avoid suffering New York's fate, but Levi warns that their efforts may be hampered by other locations not doing nearly enough.

"The problem we have in the US," he says, " is the capacity to respond varies so dramatically on a state-by-state basis because of the willingness to invest in public health."

"We are only as protected as the weakest states."

 

[Gregs24]

- Setting the cost and collecting the fees is the core function of any business--the government does that for BBC
- The government also retains the right to screen certain BBC journalists
- Citizens cannot opt out of paying for BBC unless they opt out of their TV tax altogether (TV tax is common across Europe, as is dog tax. No TV; no TV tax. No dog, no dog tax. Claim no religion, no religious tax--UK doesn't have that one. The TV tax people ride around in vans with detection devices to catch cheaters.)
- So, how free from government influence is this form of press?

You completely misunderstand how the BBC is structured, managed, and funded. You need to go back to the Wiki article as a starting point. There is no equivalent anywhere in the world so I understand it is a difficult concept to grasp.

Oh and the TV tax people you describe are actually BBC personnel. It is NOT a tax as is the case in Europe. In France the TV tax is paid to local government in the UK the license fee is paid directly and enforced by the BBC

 

[Caballus]

"We are only as protected as the weakest states."

And our citizens have greater freedoms than do the subjects of centraliZed nations...

 

[Caballus]

You completely misunderstand how the BBC is structured, managed, and funded. You need to go back to the Wiki article as a starting point. There is no equivalent anywhere in the world so I understand it is a difficult concept to grasp.

Aha, the true British colors come out with insults again. I complete understand and regularly interact with the BBC. You refuse to accept that you live under and intrusive governmental structure.

 

[Caballus]

You completely misunderstand how the BBC is structured, managed, and funded. You need to go back to the Wiki article as a starting point. There is no equivalent anywhere in the world so I understand it is a difficult concept to grasp.

Oh and the TV tax people you describe are actually BBC personnel. It is NOT a tax as is the case in Europe. In France the TV tax is paid to local government in the UK the license fee is paid directly and enforced by the BBC

Such controversy does not exist in a nation with a truly free press:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Governors_of_the_BBC#Controversy

 

[Gregs24]

And our citizens have greater freedoms than do the subjects of centraliZed nations...

Totally irrelevant to both the original post and subsequent ones AGAIN. At no point have I or Prof Levi mentioned freedoms in a decentraliSed state. (I have explained decentralised before - If you lack the respect or understanding to grasp this then this is becoming a pointless exercise)

 

[Caballus]

Totally irrelevant to both the original post and subsequent ones AGAIN. At no point have I or Prof Levi mentioned freedoms in a decentraliSed state. (I have explained decentralised before - If you lack the respect or understanding to grasp this then this is becoming a pointless exercise)

If you're describing (criticizing) an American system, why not use American English? Oh for British arrogance...

It is completely relevant. You, having never lived in a decentralized nation, but being the subject of one that perpetuated them would be the one who lacks respect and understanding for the same.

Levi is qualified to comment on health, and he is correct that we are a strong as our weakest state. He is not qualified to professionally opine on restructuring our form of governance in an effort to strengthen our ability to fight a disease.

Moreover, you have repeatedly presented Levi's comments as a call for centralization (i.e., a change of governing structure) rather than a commentary on strengths and weaknesses within the existing system.

Finally, no statistics to date, when you compare the U.S. situation to the UK situation, would allow one to reasonably deduce that a centralized system (UK) is more effective than a decentralized one.

Facts.

 

[Caballus]

Aha, the true British colors come out with insults again. I complete understand and regularly interact with the BBC. You refuse to accept that you live under and intrusive governmental structure.

I'll leave that there for you to review the bios and convince yourself the state has no influence...

https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whoweare/bbcboard

 

[Gregs24]

Levi is qualified to comment on health, and he is correct that we are a strong as our weakest state. He is not qualified to professionally opine on restructuring our form of governance in an effort to strengthen our ability to fight a disease.

Finally you get it. Delete the NOT

Sponsored