General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat if all media were State-owned?
I mean someone has to own the media. In Soviet Russia all media was state-owned, for example.
How would that be, do you think? Taxpayer-funded media, overseen by the government.
How does that sound to you?
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)MineralMan
(146,284 posts)So, who should own the media, do you think?
Voltaire2
(12,995 posts)were owned by a small set of extremely wealthy individuals?
Operated entirely to generate profit and serve the narrow interests of their owners.
How does that sound to you?
at140
(6,110 posts)because if they don't make it sound sensational, they will lose readers/watchers.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)Media is very, very expensive to operate. So, it gets bought by companies that have the money. The Washington Post, for example, would have had to shut down, except for Bezos buying it through Nash Holdings.
There are still some independently owned media companies, but fewer and fewer as costs go up and profits go down.
Nothing is free. Someone has to own media companies.
It's up to us to filter the news, it seems.
Voltaire2
(12,995 posts)media to prevent monopolistic practices. There is no reason why that practice should not be reinstated and expanded to cover new media. Also we could subsidize local independent media. The choice doesnt have to Zuckerberg or Pravda.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)I think it would spell the end for many local broadcasters, though. However, given today's access to cable and internet connections, that might not make much difference, really. I suspect that internet media, though, will end up replacing all the rest before too long. The trend is already there. It's simple to create a new media outlet online, and even one person can establish such a thing at almost no cost.
However, offering enough high quality content to attract an audience is another matter. That costs money, and a lot of it, so you're right back to the same problem, really. Content producers insist on being paid, if they're any good at what they do. And they can get paid, so it's pretty hard to create enough content on your own to support a popular online media source.
Some have found enough content providers who will work for free. DU is such a place. But, finding the quality content on such outlets can be difficult, so it's hard to create a large following. I could use DU as an example of that, as well. Here we can see the number of page views for any original post. It's pretty small, even for very active threads. So, there's that.
I'm not a fan, though, of government subsidies for local media. With money comes control.
sarisataka
(18,570 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 7, 2020, 03:33 PM - Edit history (1)
Call it something that will encourage people to have faith and trust in the information put out. I think the Ministry of Truth has a nice ring to it.
ETA> The protagonist of Orwell's book 1984 worked in the Ministry of Truth, or as it was popularly called, MiniTru.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)Like NPR?
That can work, in a limited way. Do you listen to an NPR station?
sarisataka
(18,570 posts)The joke was in the Ministry of Truth reference...
Mosby
(16,297 posts)Are you old enough to remember that?
Was that state media?
sarisataka
(18,570 posts)The Orwellian reference would signal the sarcasm in my suggestion that government run media would be a good idea. It seems I was mistaken.
Mosby
(16,297 posts)sarisataka
(18,570 posts)For clarification
Mosby
(16,297 posts)The profit motive in that industry is hurting this country.
Besides lecturing everyone, do you have any ideas how to deal with the problem?
I think we should massively increase funding of NPR and PBS so at least average americans will have a mostly bias free source for news.
ETA- and do away with corporate sponsorships.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)Not even close.
How would you increase NPR and PBS funding and eliminate corporate sponsorship? Where would the money come from?
I'll wait here for your answer.
Voltaire2
(12,995 posts)Mosby
(16,297 posts)And have more than enough money to fund public non-profit tv and radio.
It would be independent (like currently) without influence from the current admin.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)Funding is control, in one way or another. Federal funding for public radio and television is at an all-time low, which is why corporate sponsorship is needed for PBS and NPR. The sponsorship messages on them is still advertising, although more subtle than other advertising. And the sponsors insist on those messages being aired.
Corporations try to reach the broadest possible audience, so they don't mind funding public broadcasting, and create their sponsorship messages to suit the audience. It's still advertising, though.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)others' ideas. I don't see any lecturing in my opening post. Just a question.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)But it should be required to be non-profit.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)and prohibit a for-profit press. I think you'd have to amend the Constitution, to tell you the truth.
I'm open to suggestions for how the media would get funded without private ownership and the profit motive.
C_U_L8R
(44,997 posts)The nation is dumbing down. We need more critical thinkers and creative doers. Not these right wing couch potatoes mindlessly sucking on the faux nozzle.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)although the funding is mixed between state and local government funding. Higher education is less-well publicly funded, but didn't used to be that way, at least for state colleges and universities. We have Ronald Reagan to thank for beginning those funding cuts.
VOX
(22,976 posts)And its now out in the open for those who can see: denial of science, conspiracy theories, xenophobia, lack of empathy, and an utter lack of knowledge about the worlds workings.
Small wonder that Republicans keep cutting funds to education.
alwaysinasnit
(5,063 posts)company holds too much sway over the populace. Media consolidation has only limited the type and scope of news reporting, and together with the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine, we are given a heavy, steady stream of right wing viewpoints.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)broadcasters shut down if that happened. But, it's an idea worth reconsidering, for sure.