• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support news broadcasts receiving public funding?

Do you support news broadcasts receiving public funding?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 69.2%

  • No

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • Other - I'll explain

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Total voters
    13
Tres1B

Tres1B

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
226
Reaction score
120
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Title says it all, do you agree with news broadcasts receiving public funds?
 
I am fine with private news media outlets doing things how they want but no funds for them. I do think there is utility in having a small number of media outlets that are fully tax funded with no advertising allowed.
 
I have no problem with NPR receiving federal funding. So yeah.
 
Tres1B said:
Title says it all, do you agree with news broadcasts receiving public funds?
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the broadcasted content because, unlike cable news, the bits of public broadcasting news and information content I consume actually is overwhelmingly news, and there's really no opinion to have about facts and information. News just is what it is. As for their editorial content, I agree with some of the commentators and I don't agree with some; however, I don't universally agree with any specific commentator's opinions about the events, people and places they opt to discuss.

And, no, I have no problem with public broadcasting organizations receiving public funds. That is the point, after all, isn't it?
 
yes, i support NPR / PBS getting funded publicly.
 
Commercial bias vs. Public bias, possibly with a contemporary President in power taint. Both are bought and sold news. Public funding has a better record. Cheerleaders for War buy lots of positive spin in favor of war at all commercial MSM. Big Money buys lots of MSM to support financially favorable political positions. Real World.
/
 
We seem to be primarily talking about PBS. That organization is far from "unbiased". They know which side supports their public funding and slant their coverage accordingly. In that way they are no different from any commercially privately funded news organization. With a huge variety of news and information available online 24/7 there is no need for publicly funded news. The alternative viewpoints are plentiful and easily accessed. Publicly funding news programs of any type is an antiquated idea whose useful time has passed.
 
The BBC is publicly funded, and has a charter commitment to equity of views. In general their content veers toward the establishment view, though in recent years a bias in their political programming in particular favours the Conservative party. The anti-Corbyn stance has been glaringly obvious. Even so, their overall output is as balanced as that of Channel 4 (an independent public channel funded from advertising) and much better than privately owned channels such as Sky (The British Faux.)
 
No. Tax payers shouldn't be propping up media outlets. If you want free news then tune your TV to any of the privately funded news networks.
 
As long as the station broadcasts news that may not be cared by mainstream networks and affiliates. Usually news not broadcasts and way out of the ordinary gets the most attention.
I will make donations to a newsroom reporting a raid on a lemonade stand which is a cover for child prostitution ring than a report of a cat stuck in a drain pipe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom