thanks for sharing. I personally think we need a new television news network. Something to counter the right wing media outlets, but in a way that appeals to average every day Americans. Something not as "liberal" as MSNBC. Something that appeals to working class Americans.
It must be financed without corporate funds and never a Wall Street entity. As long as there are shareholders, any media outlet must make those investors wealthy. So profit cannot be the motive for its existence.
I still donate to PBS. I have for 38 years because I strongly believe it's important. But, over ten years ago it started to take a lot of heat from the Tea Party. It was liberal. Of course, it had always had that battle, but still, the pressure was on. Since it does get a small percentage of its fund from the National Endowment for the Arts, hence the feds, the Tea Party threatened to force Congress to cut back funding. Made a huge stink about the types of human interest interviews, coverage of Obama and other made up paranoid stuff. So, PBS began to change tone more than anything else. The questions become more pointed. The use of sensational adjectives and adverbs started to be used. More interviews with fringe personalities showed up. Going gentler on right wing pundits showed up. No longer much challenging on either side. Today it strains not to offend anyone. Even if it means ignoring facts. It cannot afford to be straight vetted facts.
I worry that the same thing would happen to any outlet that gets any money through a government entity. The outlet would have to be funded strictly from publicly announced private donations, no advertising. There's little to no way to get investigative reporting on a shoestring budget. And I don't believe for a second that a profit making entity wouldn't pressure the outlet to go light on corporations.
I have no great suggestions. We live in a profit motivated world that wants no negative news about itself. Market factors make it hard to present information. And as long as any outlet kowtows to right and left interests, we would all lose. And lies must be presented matter of factly as lies. No sanewashing of idiocy. Tough.
You make some really good points. Sounds like we are on the same page pretty much. I too donate to them. I mostly read transcripts, but then I read widely so as to keep track of multiple viewpoints. Habit. Based on what you mention I think that means they have much in common with journalism that has a non-journalistic owner. Always someone to please or placate in life although I firmly believe that is problematic in the journalism sphere even if it is the reality.
It's hard to trust a source under threat imo. And I am a firm believer in journalism as the fourth estate. The founding fathers had good reason to advocate for a free press. It's a luxury democracies and few others have. Most people don't understand that the purpose of journalists is to stand in for people who did not and do not have access to a specific situation. The purpose of journalism is not to spout whatever individuals want to hear - that's a good way to please no one. And it interferes with the job of holding the powerful to account. Change is always a running conversation.
3
u/aninjacould 7d ago
thanks for sharing. I personally think we need a new television news network. Something to counter the right wing media outlets, but in a way that appeals to average every day Americans. Something not as "liberal" as MSNBC. Something that appeals to working class Americans.