Thats why most capitalist nations do have a public broadcast additionally to freedom of the press.
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
72 points (76.9% liked)
Memes
45728 readers
1104 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Is it better then nothing? Yes. Is it free, fair and unbiased? Hahaha fuck no.
As someone from a country that has this (Germany): It's not unbiased, because it's financed by the state and dependent upon the parties in power for it's continued existence. In Germany that means being beholden to a bunch of neolib and conservative parties. And obviously these libs and conservatives only know how eat hot chip, lie and privatize everything, meaning state media receives a pittance of money and politicians still complain about that being too much.
It is not financed by the state but directly through the citizens (although it is mandatory). Its' job is literally to be unbiased https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/hintergrund-aktuell/311191/oeffentlich-rechtlicher-rundfunk-von-der-gruendung-der-ard-bis-heute/
Yes, but said public broadcasters are incentivised to paint the current government in a favourable light in order to keep funding.
That really depends on how exactly the public broadcasting is funded. In Germany for example, this happens independently from other state expenses so there's no way that the government can directly controll the press. For this reason, the press tends to be critical of all political parties, including the ones currently in government.
Oh look, another US-centric anticapitalist/communist agendapost on memes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States
Fun part about whataboutism, you can keep asking "what about _?" over and over and still say nothing
This is literally an example of what happens when there is no free press at all. Sure it may be flawed but the alternative is waaay worse. I'm not saying that the US did not partake in it, just that the UDSSR did it so much worse
To be fair, you didn't really say any of that, just linked to a wiki page about censorship in the USSR
Fair enough
Wikipedia is a CIA propaganda hub
Every source you don't approve of is a cia propaganda hub. Convenient 😏
Every piece of news you read is filtered through capital's prism and you think a Photoshop from a destroyed communist project is a rebuttal?
Like did you even ask yourself if the two were related? How is a disgraced party member removed from pictures used by the communist party even close to the scope of media monopoly that exists?
Are you opposed to freedom of the press? Because what that gets you is press that exclusively peddles whatever the government (which is evil and seeks total domination and control) wants. Perfect for totalitarians in exactly the same way Lenin is saying a free press is perfect for the bourgeoisie, except to a far greater extent.
You might also argue for no news at all, but that also seems like an opportunity for the government to craft any narrative they want.
The best solution is to keep the government out of it and allow people to choose whichever news source they want. Allowing people to provide financial support to sources they like could even help that source grow and reach new people. The result is a flexible, continuous, and democratic system of determining which news source best satisfies the interests of the people. This is just applying capitalism to the news.
Granted this isn't a system without its issues, but those issues can be handled by people realizing one source is corrupt and switching to another. The issues in other systems (which are really the same issues, corruption and biases) are entirely uncontrollable and without solution.
While I agree, the issue we're having with " by people realizing one source is corrupt and switching to another." Is that people aren't agreeing with what their propagandists of choice say and therefore leave for those that do say what they want to hear. (See: Fox & Newsmax.) So that check doesn't work as it would in theory. Those people just want to hear that they have all the answers and that their thoughts were correct.
Then there are those with no option as well, what news sources are out there that don't cater almost exclusively to the 1%? Those of us far enough on the left don't follow any of the corporate media as they are exactly what the meme is discussing.
If you're a "centrist" that is totally ok with the status quo then current day corporate media ecosystem works just fine for you. All that said, I don't disagree that removing freedom of the press just leaves the government to fill the gap and no one should want that.
I guess I can't imagine a better system.
If people want propaganda there's literally nothing that could stop that.
Sure, every major news outlet is biased, but people can read what a variety of outlets have to say and synthesis the truth from that (there was an AI that did that a while back that was pretty cool) or people could much smaller sources (even one person) that's good at research that they somewhat trust and get their news there. The important thing is just that the government doesn't interfere and everyone's free to say whatever they want.
I don't like that news sources are corrupt, but they have so much power and influence that someone's going to figure out a way to bribe them no matter what.
The best solution is to keep the government out of it and allow people to choose whichever news source they want.
I think the best solution is to clarify or modify the first amendment so that it applies only to individual persons, not any artificial entity.
Which part of the first amendment shouldn't refer to companies (or other artificial entities)?