Problematic Stuff

Post Reply
User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 19549
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Brian Peacock » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:33 pm

Funding a media outlet with a statutory obligation to neutrality is simply a matter of law and regulation, no different to the state funding of political organisations or of independent watchdogs and regulators. A reliable, non-partisan source of news and analysis is a prerequisite of an engaged and informed populous.


/!marxism
.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 14474
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: on the beach, drinking a beer
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by laklak » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:04 pm

Nobody watches PBS or listens to their radio channels. Other then kids watching Sesame Street. Hell, they might miss Big Brother or Mama June From Not to Hot.

Just give them fucking gladiators already and have done with it. Mass communication is a Dismal Swamp indeed.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 19549
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Brian Peacock » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:59 pm

Yoghurt-knitters love PBS and NPR, particularly that Topknot Or Shot? show.
.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 11851
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:08 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:33 pm
Funding a media outlet with a statutory obligation to neutrality is simply a matter of law and regulation, no different to the state funding of political organisations or of independent watchdogs and regulators. A reliable, non-partisan source of news and analysis is a prerequisite of an engaged and informed populous.


/!marxism
It's not that simple, because obviously whoever controls the legislation (the legislature - the party in control) has the capacity to change the legislation, remove the funding, etc. So, if coverage is deemed too negative to the sitting government, it's more likely that the government will squawk about it being "fake news" or otherwise untrue.

How often do we see governments suggesting that reports are "false" when they are really differences of opinion? How often do we see governments legislating the legality of viewpoints? Those actions are getting more common.

What if a State funded enterprise starts siding more with one party than another, and editorializing in their news reports?

Yes, indeed, it is a matter of legislation and enforcement of the law - that's true, but it's not an easy or simple thing. In order to bring the State funded enterprise into line, a State enforcement mechanism must exist to ensure that the media does not breach their legal obligation.

That's not to attack Australian media -- when one refers to "State run media" the reference is not just to funding but to "editorial control." If there is funding of a public broadcaster, but there is an effective wall created between the State and editorial control, it's obviously not the same thing as Pravda was or some communist government run media. I've not alleged that, nor have I suggested that all state funding of news is improper.

Public sector media is state funded media, where the State does not exercise editorial control. There is a place for that, IMO. But I think the place for it is in addition to a vigorous free market of ideas, and not instead of a free market.

As usual, the British commonwealth (and former british colony) part of the world is way better on press freedom than the rest of the world, Asia, most of Africa, and South America. Countries like Oz, NZ, UK, US, most of western Europe, are solidly good when it comes to press freedom. Much of eastern Europe and the Balkans have press freedom problems. The BRIC countries and Muslim countries are not particularly good on press freedom.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 18248
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Hermit » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:14 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:08 pm
That's not to attack Australian media -- when one refers to "State run media" the reference is not just to funding but to "editorial control."
Bullshit. You were quite categorical about this:
Forty Two wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:21 pm
I don't know what you mean by assured government funding and strong/independent media organization. If the government pays for the news, then it's not "independent" of the government.
That is as clearly a summary condemnation of government funded media organisations as one can get, and one you did not begin to backpedal from until after I called you out on it.

I do grant you that there definitely is the possibility of the ABC and SBS turning into a propaganda tool for the government, but as outlined earlier in order for that to happen, pretty much insurmountable hurdles need to be overcome.

Now look at the non-government funded media. Outfits like Fox News, Breitbart, The Daily Caller et cetera. Their editorial slants represent the interests of the billionaires who keep shovelling millions their way. They are the Pravdas of the private sector. I don't know what you mean by assured private funding and strong/independent media organization. If the billionaires pay for the news, then it's not "independent" of the billionaires.

Except for The Guardian and The Washington Post, of course. I was discussing the general concepts earlier. When one refers to "privately run media" the reference is not just to funding but to "editorial control." If there is funding of a privately owned broadcaster, but there is an effective wall created between the owner and editorial control, it's obviously not the same thing as Breitbart or some capitalist oligopoly run media. I've not alleged that, nor have I suggested that all private funding of news is improper.

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 2909
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Trump supporters are not quite as bad as Nazis. Yet.
Location: It's happening here.
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Seabass » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:33 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:59 pm
Yoghurt-knitters love PBS and NPR, particularly that Topknot Or Shot? show.
I don't know what a "yoghurt-knitter" is, but I do love PBS and NPR. Does that make me a yoghurt-knitter? :ask:
Hey, Torquemada, whaddaya say?
I just got back from the auto-da-fé.
Auto-da-fé, what's an auto-da-fé?
It's what you oughtn't to do but you do anyway...

"I am a sick man... I am a wicked man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts."

“In the meantime, rest well and dream of large women.”

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45423
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:34 pm

Why are you moving, Brian? Tell us something about your life.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 2909
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Trump supporters are not quite as bad as Nazis. Yet.
Location: It's happening here.
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Seabass » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:14 pm

We're all going to die in a big fireball, but it'll be totally worth it because Trump gave me a small tax cut.

Alarm as ice loss from Antarctica triples in the past five years
https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... ive-years/
The forecasts they are a-changin’. In 2007, the official view was that there would be no net ice loss from Antarctica over the next century. By 2012, it was clear that Antarctic was already losing ice. And now ice loss has tripled, according to the most comprehensive study to date.

“There has been a sharp increase, with almost half the loss coming in the last five years alone,” says Andrew Shepherd at the University of Leeds, UK, one of the 84 researchers involved in the study. “The outlook for the future is looking different to what it was.”

Antarctica’s contribution to rising sea level is still small: just 7.6 millimetres between 1992 and 2017. What’s alarming is that the rate of ice loss is increasing.

Up until 2012, Antarctic ice loss was contributing just 0.2 mm per year to sea level, and did not appear to be increasing. “We could not detect any acceleration,” says Shepherd.

But since 2012 the rate has tripled to 0.6 mm per year. “I was completely surprised,” says team member Pippa Whitehouse of Durham University, UK. “The threefold increase was out of the range we were expecting.”

How bad is bad?
Ice loss is now tracking close to the worst-case Antarctic scenario set out in the 2013 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in which the Antarctic alone contributes 150 mm of sea level rise by 2100.

And that worst case is no longer the worst case. There have been a series of alarming findings since that report came out.

In particular, a 2016 computer modelling study concluded that Antarctica alone could lose enough ice by 2100 to raise sea level by 2 metres. This means overall sea level could rise by more than 3m by 2100. It will keep rising long after that, perhaps by 20m or more.

While many glaciologists are sceptical about the 2016 study, nobody knows for sure how fast the seas will rise. The problem we have is that the computer models are essentially the only way we have to forecast how much ice Antarctica will lose. And the only way to check those models are in the right ballpark is to compare their predictions to what is actually happening.

“The models must be calibrated and tested,” says team member Michiel van den Broeke of Utrecht University in the Netherlands. This requires an accurate, long-term picture of what is happening. That is the main point of the latest work, which draws on all previous studies.

It is based on surveys by satellites that measure changes in the height of the ice sheet and changes in gravity as ice mass is lost. But using this data to calculate ice loss is far from simple. For instance, changes in snowfall can affect the apparent elevation of ice sheets, while the rebounding of land as ice is lost affects the gravity signal.

The team conclude that Antarctica lost 3 trillion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2017 as the planet warmed. Almost all the ice loss was from the West Antarctic, where the ice sheet rests on the seafloor rather than on land and is thus exposed to warming waters.

“Warmer water is eating into the ice sheet,” says Whitehouse. “Warming oceans are really the major problem.”

Sea level has risen around 0.2m in the past century. Most of this is due to ice loss from mountain glaciers and Greenland, and from the expansion of the warming oceans.

Faster and faster?
The trillion-dollar question is whether the increase in Antarctic ice loss is a temporary blip, or if it will continue to increase in a non-linear fashion: rapidly rising to several millimetres per year, then to several centimetres per year and so on.

Climate scientist James Hansen of Columbia University, New York, described the danger in a 2007 article in New Scientist:

“The primary issue is whether global warming will reach a level such that ice sheets begin to disintegrate in a rapid, non-linear fashion on West Antarctica, Greenland or both. Once well under way, such a collapse might be impossible to stop, because there are multiple positive feedbacks. In that event, a sea level rise of several metres at least would be expected.”
Hey, Torquemada, whaddaya say?
I just got back from the auto-da-fé.
Auto-da-fé, what's an auto-da-fé?
It's what you oughtn't to do but you do anyway...

"I am a sick man... I am a wicked man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts."

“In the meantime, rest well and dream of large women.”

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 11851
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:46 pm

Hermit wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:14 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:08 pm
That's not to attack Australian media -- when one refers to "State run media" the reference is not just to funding but to "editorial control."
Bullshit. You were quite categorical about this:
Oy, can you just read the whole post, and not just snip a piece of it?
Hermit wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:14 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:21 pm
I don't know what you mean by assured government funding and strong/independent media organization. If the government pays for the news, then it's not "independent" of the government.
That is as clearly a summary condemnation of government funded media organisations as one can get, and one you did not begin to backpedal from until after I called you out on it.
Read the sentences that come after that, where I specifically refer to publicly funded media which is not a State run media. The reference to it being not "independent" of the government is accurate. The ABC is not completely independent from the government. When I made that comment I made zero reference to Australia's media. The reference was to the overall parameters of the discussion -- one end of the spectrum is wholly private enterprises, and on the other end are wholly state funded and controlled entities.
Hermit wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:14 pm


I do grant you that there definitely is the possibility of the ABC and SBS turning into a propaganda tool for the government, but as outlined earlier in order for that to happen, pretty much insurmountable hurdles need to be overcome.
And I said nothing about ABC or SBS in my post. I was referring to systems in general, not the specific example in your country. I have granted that ABC is state funded, but with controls in place designed for the State not to be able to control its editorial decisions. But, in the end, it is still not technically "independent." It is not Pravda, however, and I never said it was.

Hermit wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:14 pm

Now look at the non-government funded media. Outfits like Fox News, Breitbart, The Daily Caller et cetera.
And, the US's ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN Headline News, BBC America,etc. These are all private enterprises. The only state funded enterprise in the US in the media industry is PBS, Public Broadcasing/NPR.
Hermit wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:14 pm

Their editorial slants represent the interests of the billionaires who keep shovelling millions their way. They are the Pravdas of the private sector. I don't know what you mean by assured private funding and strong/independent media organization. If the billionaires pay for the news, then it's not "independent" of the billionaires.
Of course not, but it is independent of the State, which is of vital importance. What I mean by assured private funding and a strong/independent media market is a wide-ranging marketplace of ideas, with low barriers to entry, so people can create new media outlets, new newspapers, new websites, etc. Matt Drudge created the Drudge Report and Andrew Breitbart created Breitbart news when they were living hand-to-mouth. These were not billionaire media creations at their inception. A vibrant, competitive market is the best solution, in my view.

Hermit wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:14 pm

Except for The Guardian and The Washington Post, of course. I was discussing the general concepts earlier. When one refers to "privately run media" the reference is not just to funding but to "editorial control." If there is funding of a privately owned broadcaster, but there is an effective wall created between the owner and editorial control, it's obviously not the same thing as Breitbart or some capitalist oligopoly run media. I've not alleged that, nor have I suggested that all private funding of news is improper.
If we have an oligopoly, then that's a problem. And, as I also mentioned, we do have a discomforting amalgamation of media entities into conglomerates, and the result is as you say - uniformity of editorial control, where the wealthy corporate owners can control their editorial decisions. That's not what I've advocated. I advocated against that, when I said that large mergers should be prohibited, and that when media companies get too big, they should be broken up under monopoly and antitrust law.

I have a feeling we're in more agreement than not.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45423
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:18 am

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:46 pm
Hermit wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:14 pm

Their editorial slants represent the interests of the billionaires who keep shovelling millions their way. They are the Pravdas of the private sector. I don't know what you mean by assured private funding and strong/independent media organization. If the billionaires pay for the news, then it's not "independent" of the billionaires.
Of course not, but it is independent of the State, which is of vital importance.
It's interesting that you think you have more to fear from the state than you do from corporations.
What I mean by assured private funding and a strong/independent media market is a wide-ranging marketplace of ideas, with low barriers to entry, so people can create new media outlets, new newspapers, new websites, etc. Matt Drudge created the Drudge Report and Andrew Breitbart created Breitbart news when they were living hand-to-mouth. These were not billionaire media creations at their inception. A vibrant, competitive market is the best solution, in my view.
Well then you should support Net Neutrality.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 18248
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Hermit » Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:04 am

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:46 pm
Hermit wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:14 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:08 pm
That's not to attack Australian media -- when one refers to "State run media" the reference is not just to funding but to "editorial control."
Bullshit. You were quite categorical about this:
Oy, can you just read the whole post, and not just snip a piece of it?
I read it. You graciously allowed that "some government funding, in the nature of funding of the arts and sciences", then its independence is certainly not an issue. Both, the ABC and SBS are fully funded by the government, so irrelevant to what I'm objecting to.

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:46 pm
Hermit wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:14 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:21 pm
I don't know what you mean by assured government funding and strong/independent media organization. If the government pays for the news, then it's not "independent" of the government.
That is as clearly a summary condemnation of government funded media organisations as one can get, and one you did not begin to backpedal from until after I called you out on it.
Read the sentences that come after that, where I specifically refer to publicly funded media which is not a State run media.
There is only one sentence following the ones I quoted, and it just doubles up on what you wrote above it. To wit:
Forty Two wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:21 pm
A State news agency, though, risks becoming Pravda. That doesn't help anyone.
And no mention of the ABC or SBS being an exception.

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:46 pm
Hermit wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:14 pm
I do grant you that there definitely is the possibility of the ABC and SBS turning into a propaganda tool for the government, but as outlined earlier in order for that to happen, pretty much insurmountable hurdles need to be overcome.
And I said nothing about ABC or SBS in my post. I was referring to systems in general, not the specific example in your country.
Exactly. Until I called you out on your sweeping generalisation both the ABC and SBS were not excepted from the "systems in general".
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:46 pm
I have granted that ABC is state funded, but with controls in place designed for the State not to be able to control its editorial decisions. But, in the end, it is still not technically "independent." It is not Pravda, however, and I never said it was.
You'll make an excellent historical revisionist, but luckily we can check your assertion against what you actually posted. I'll pass over your statement about technical independence without comment for now and merely repeat: Until I called you out on it, you made a sweeping statement: " If the government pays for the news, then it's not "independent" of the government." No exceptions. No limitations. No qualifications. Not until you were challenged on that.

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:46 pm
Hermit wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:14 pm
Now look at the non-government funded media. Outfits like Fox News, Breitbart, The Daily Caller et cetera.
And, the US's ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN Headline News, BBC America,etc. These are all private enterprises. The only state funded enterprise in the US in the media industry is PBS, Public Broadcasing/NPR.
Point being?

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:46 pm
Hermit wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:14 pm
Their editorial slants represent the interests of the billionaires who keep shovelling millions their way. They are the Pravdas of the private sector. I don't know what you mean by assured private funding and strong/independent media organization. If the billionaires pay for the news, then it's not "independent" of the billionaires.
Of course not, but it is independent of the State, which is of vital importance. What I mean by assured private funding and a strong/independent media market is a wide-ranging marketplace of ideas, with low barriers to entry, so people can create new media outlets, new newspapers, new websites, etc. Matt Drudge created the Drudge Report and Andrew Breitbart created Breitbart news when they were living hand-to-mouth. These were not billionaire media creations at their inception. A vibrant, competitive market is the best solution, in my view.
WTF? Low barriers of entry, you say? Those clowns at the Young Turks have a lot of subscribers, but have a look at how many views their offerings get. It's a rare clip that reaches six-digit territory. To get millions of listeners, viewers and readers you need the resources of a Rupert Murdoch, Axel Springer or one of the other half dozen media tycoons that have 80 or 90% of the market in the first world sewn up between them.

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:46 pm
Hermit wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:14 pm
Except for The Guardian and The Washington Post, of course. I was discussing the general concepts earlier. When one refers to "privately run media" the reference is not just to funding but to "editorial control." If there is funding of a privately owned broadcaster, but there is an effective wall created between the owner and editorial control, it's obviously not the same thing as Breitbart or some capitalist oligopoly run media. I've not alleged that, nor have I suggested that all private funding of news is improper.
If we have an oligopoly, then that's a problem. And, as I also mentioned, we do have a discomforting amalgamation of media entities into conglomerates, and the result is as you say - uniformity of editorial control, where the wealthy corporate owners can control their editorial decisions. That's not what I've advocated. I advocated against that, when I said that large mergers should be prohibited, and that when media companies get too big, they should be broken up under monopoly and antitrust law.

I have a feeling we're in more agreement than not.
LOL. That's what I call an Irish compliment of the first water. As far as I am concerned the influence of large, privately owned media in the first world can be every bit as pernicious as the fabled Pravda was.


User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 11851
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:39 am

Hermit wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:04 am
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:46 pm
Hermit wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:14 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:08 pm
That's not to attack Australian media -- when one refers to "State run media" the reference is not just to funding but to "editorial control."
Bullshit. You were quite categorical about this:
Oy, can you just read the whole post, and not just snip a piece of it?
I read it. You graciously allowed that "some government funding, in the nature of funding of the arts and sciences", then its independence is certainly not an issue. Both, the ABC and SBS are fully funded by the government, so irrelevant to what I'm objecting to.
Your objection is irrelevant. In that post I wasn't talking about Australia or Australia's media. I was addressing the overall issue. I did not say that Oz was like Soviet Russia or had a Pravda-like media outlet.

And, some funding in the nature of funding the arts and science certainly does not present much of an issue. That statement is accurate.

Jesus, man, come off it.

Hermit wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:04 am

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:46 pm
Hermit wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:14 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:21 pm
I don't know what you mean by assured government funding and strong/independent media organization. If the government pays for the news, then it's not "independent" of the government.
That is as clearly a summary condemnation of government funded media organisations as one can get, and one you did not begin to backpedal from until after I called you out on it.
Read the sentences that come after that, where I specifically refer to publicly funded media which is not a State run media.
There is only one sentence following the ones I quoted, and it just doubles up on what you wrote above it. To wit:
Forty Two wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:21 pm
A State news agency, though, risks becoming Pravda. That doesn't help anyone.
And no mention of the ABC or SBS being an exception.
Why would I? I also didn't mention the news outlets in Canada or France. I wasn't talking about Australia. When Australia was brought up, I acknowledged that Australia technically doesn't have a "State news agency" since the system divests the State of direct editorial control. State media is different than public sector media, and I think the descriptions of Australia's media is that there is public sector media but not State news or state media.
Hermit wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:04 am
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:46 pm
Hermit wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:14 pm
I do grant you that there definitely is the possibility of the ABC and SBS turning into a propaganda tool for the government, but as outlined earlier in order for that to happen, pretty much insurmountable hurdles need to be overcome.
And I said nothing about ABC or SBS in my post. I was referring to systems in general, not the specific example in your country.
Exactly. Until I called you out on your sweeping generalisation both the ABC and SBS were not excepted from the "systems in general".
Because I wasn't talking about any particular system. Why would you think I'm referring to Australia? Australia is no more relevant than Canada or any other country.
Hermit wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:04 am

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:46 pm
I have granted that ABC is state funded, but with controls in place designed for the State not to be able to control its editorial decisions. But, in the end, it is still not technically "independent." It is not Pravda, however, and I never said it was.
You'll make an excellent historical revisionist, but luckily we can check your assertion against what you actually posted. I'll pass over your statement about technical independence without comment for now and merely repeat: Until I called you out on it, you made a sweeping statement: " If the government pays for the news, then it's not "independent" of the government." No exceptions. No limitations. No qualifications. Not until you were challenged on that.
That's TRUE - it's not "independent of the government." There is financial dependence at least. One can't say if the government funds any company that it's "independent" of the government. The choices aren't, however, complete independence or Pravda, and I never said it was. Nor was I referring to Australia in particular.

Hermit wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:04 am
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:46 pm
Hermit wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:14 pm
Now look at the non-government funded media. Outfits like Fox News, Breitbart, The Daily Caller et cetera.
And, the US's ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN Headline News, BBC America,etc. These are all private enterprises. The only state funded enterprise in the US in the media industry is PBS, Public Broadcasing/NPR.
Point being?
That was my way of asking you the same question. You seem to have been asking me to look at non-government funded entities. What was your point? I looked at a lot of them, and listed them out.
Hermit wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:04 am
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:46 pm
Hermit wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:14 pm
Their editorial slants represent the interests of the billionaires who keep shovelling millions their way. They are the Pravdas of the private sector. I don't know what you mean by assured private funding and strong/independent media organization. If the billionaires pay for the news, then it's not "independent" of the billionaires.
Of course not, but it is independent of the State, which is of vital importance. What I mean by assured private funding and a strong/independent media market is a wide-ranging marketplace of ideas, with low barriers to entry, so people can create new media outlets, new newspapers, new websites, etc. Matt Drudge created the Drudge Report and Andrew Breitbart created Breitbart news when they were living hand-to-mouth. These were not billionaire media creations at their inception. A vibrant, competitive market is the best solution, in my view.
WTF? Low barriers of entry, you say? Those clowns at the Young Turks have a lot of subscribers, but have a look at how many views their offerings get. It's a rare clip that reaches six-digit territory. To get millions of listeners, viewers and readers you need the resources of a Rupert Murdoch, Axel Springer or one of the other half dozen media tycoons that have 80 or 90% of the market in the first world sewn up between them.
Of course, media tycoons will have more resources. And, the sewing up of 80 to 90% of the market is one of the things I have said is wrong - to be avoided - to be stopped - to be fixed.

Hermit wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:04 am

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:46 pm
Hermit wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:14 pm
Except for The Guardian and The Washington Post, of course. I was discussing the general concepts earlier. When one refers to "privately run media" the reference is not just to funding but to "editorial control." If there is funding of a privately owned broadcaster, but there is an effective wall created between the owner and editorial control, it's obviously not the same thing as Breitbart or some capitalist oligopoly run media. I've not alleged that, nor have I suggested that all private funding of news is improper.
If we have an oligopoly, then that's a problem. And, as I also mentioned, we do have a discomforting amalgamation of media entities into conglomerates, and the result is as you say - uniformity of editorial control, where the wealthy corporate owners can control their editorial decisions. That's not what I've advocated. I advocated against that, when I said that large mergers should be prohibited, and that when media companies get too big, they should be broken up under monopoly and antitrust law.

I have a feeling we're in more agreement than not.
LOL. That's what I call an Irish compliment of the first water. As far as I am concerned the influence of large, privately owned media in the first world can be every bit as pernicious as the fabled Pravda was.

I don't disagree with you. You haven't seen me defend large, privately owned media. If you recall, in the first post that set you off, I specifically mentioned that large media companies should be broken up and not allowed to further merge. The conglomerates dominating the industry are a problem.

Honestly, Hermit, I never criticized Australian media. I never defended the conglomerate media. You seem to have had an inappropriate knee-jerk reaction.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 18248
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Hermit » Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:55 am

:roll:

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45423
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:31 pm

It's your Austral-Germanic mindset that is causing it!
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 11851
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:36 pm

Hermit wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:55 am
:roll:
Whatever, cheers!
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests