The Beeb will do nicely. I'll grant you they do a much better job with international news than any US network...but politically, they're completely homogeneous. Maybe British politics are more homogeneous and this is a reflection of that, but if the BBC were your only choice, you'd hold certain unchallenged opinions as defaults.
First of all I do believe politics outside the US are a bit more homogenous in general. I believe that is because most have parlaimentary systems which alleviates the acidic polarity of our two party system. People in the US keep seeing things as black and white stock dilemmas, and people outside tend to see things more as consensus towards a solution. BBC probably does reflect some of this attitude.
Second you are way off on suggesting that the BBC does not challenge all sides, including social democrats (remember you were the one that called it an echo chamber). I have seen some pretty clear factual revelations against soc-dems and most certainly some biting interviews. How long have you watched BBC? They have a show called HardTalk which is excellent at raking every position over the coals.
Third just because the news is presented in a homogenous fashion would not necessarily result in one adopting only one view. Homogenous does not necessarily mean attacking other view points or distorting news to fit a preferred view point. While that is certainly the case in US biased media, who live by getting people riled up, that is not true in Europe.
Fourth, I think you just pointed out what I am talking about and so undercut your own position. If you want factual news or educational material the best can be found outside commercial programming. That is it hands down. Increasing commercial control of news channels have weakened US news sources.
In any case, television has inherent limitations as a medium for serious news and analysis. One needs other media to truly be informed.
Agreed, but it is a reletively common media for most citizens. It would be good to have a channel dedicated to accurate information, instead of EXCITING NEWS so that you'll stick around through the commercials.
John Stuart Mill asserted that most stupid people are conservatives, but not the converse.
He had not seen Fox.
Or are you inviting us to the viewpoint that "the masses" need to hold the opinions that their betters in an unelected technocracy supply them? IE, Sesame Street would never have succeeded unless it was forced on an unwilling American public for their own good ?
No and I find it interesting that you are continuing to hold the line that you refute when IDists use it. Can you explain how this works for PBS and not for public schools?
What you have already admitted is that we have examples that noncommercial sources of information can beat commercial sources. That would itself argue for the public treating itself to such a service.
That could include children's educational television. I am uncertain how you get to "technocrat" when someone is discussing factual info like the alphabet and addition.
You ask me to show that it could not be done the same with commercial sources, and I can only respond that while some of the quality could be seen in any one show, the fact that it is a COMMERCIAL STATION will inevitably reduce the quality of the station and to some degree the majority of programming. That is they might be willing to put on a quality show like Sesame St, but only if it is packed between two other MORE EXCITING shows that also sell them the latest candy bar.
By public funding a station, that means it does not have to hawk wares at people, nor dumb itself down to the lowest common denominator. That is its added value which you cannot get in commercial programming.
As a side note, I am not trying to bash commercial programming per se. I like TV and most of it is commercial (though I do hate commercials themselves). What I am saying is that noncommercial programming is best suited for informational programs (and vice versa).
The only commercial way I see things like PBS getting recreated, is not by an individual network, but perhaps by a broadcasting medium creating a channel from a portion of its profits. For example cable suppliers use the money generated from all the commercial channels they supply to form an independent informational channel.
As far as I understand though, that could run into regulatory issues, and I am uncertain that it could maintain noncommercial status for long. It would inherently be a loss for the company. And ironically if we say that's okay because they can write it of taxes, THEN WHY NOT JUST FUND A CHANNEL?
Political opinions are not as precisely defined as scientific ones, and the rules of evidence are looser. Still, either the populace can be trusted to make informed decisions or they can't.
Opinion is opinion. I am not discussing political opinions which might be slanted at any station. I am discussing information and educational material from which one forms opinion.
That is the problem with commercial news, in order to gain a base audience of some kind, they no longer provide information. They supply entertainment. When it comes to handling acts and information they wrap it up in opinion, or discard it when it does not fit an opinion. They are all about opinions that you can hate or you can love, as long as you feel something, instead of just providing facts which creates brainwork for the audience.
You cannot trust a populace to create informed opinion when they do not have accurate information. Yes I absolutely believe that most people have the capability to make informed decisions, but in an information drought they will not make very good ones.
I think the best that can be said in a practical sense is that with the new news media US citizens are capable of making well entertained decisions.
The fact that over 60% of Americans believed Iraq had something to do with 911 at the time we went to war, crushes any assertion that the majority of Americans are making well informed choices.
If they can, more viewpoints and information sources are better
I think that is an interesting observation. The more sources and viewpoints the better. In the corporate news paradigm there is actually a shrinking number of sources and viewpoints. Bush just deregulated the industry so that there can be even less viewpoints and sources.
Still worse than singular entities gobbling up more and more news sources, is the fact that commercial entities cannot make money by catering to diverse points of view. They must by necessity try to capture and cater to a specific kind of audience, otherwise they will lose that audience.
Minority or contrary viewpoints will get lost in that shuffle. You can already see that when something is shown which a large group does not like, they will boycott products which will result in a stifling of that being seen again. That includes news.
Choose one PBS program of your choice and convince me that
Okay, how about Tucker Carlson's program, or William F Buckley Jr's. Both failed to make it in the private sector and so found a home in the public sector. Important for Buckley is that it was at a time when private media was largely liberal and he could not get a hearing there. He sucked off the public tit for 24 years and he's pretty conservative... I'll note with some irony that his print magazine is currently trashing PBS as a liberal bastion.
I cannot in any honest fashion argue that any one program is necessary for the good of a nation. I also cannot argue that any single program (especially if it is popular) cannot make it in the private sector.
That is of course why my argument was not that. It is that a noncommercial CHANNEL can provide something which commercial CHANNELS cannot. It is perhaps not of utter necessity, but it is quite valuable which one can see based on comparing quality between commercial and noncommercial news and educational programs, as well as the difference in public knowledge where commercial channels have reign on the news.
Put very simply, you admit the best news coverage (at least international) comes from noncommercial sources, and demographics show the US population vastly ignorant about current events and in a way that was supported by the OPINIONS of commercial stations. If I can throw in the fact that you could have a station where you can get info, or have good educational material for you kids, where they don't have to be sold something every 10 minutes, then that argues a very high value for noncommercial programming.
Just to let you know I watched the congressional hearings last time this happened (about 10 years ago). It was highly educational to watch the review. Given that it resulted in the Congress finding value in it then, and things haven't changed since then (or has 911 changed PBS too?), why is it suddenly different now?
They had people who worked in BOTH commercial and noncommercial programs (successful ones in both) explain the difference and the reason why noncommercial programs (and so a channel) were valuable. You seriously ought to review that.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
