How come the US does not have a tax payer funded public broadcasting channel?!

What need is there? We get all sides of the issue, through a large variety of media--from internet blogs to TV broadcasts. Somehow you think the government would give all sides, instead of the side that the current administration supports. I think PBS should be defunded from government sources.

 

Strange when approximately 78% of the U.S. public has access to the internet.

http://www.internetworldstats.com/top20.htm

- - - Updated - - -

The guys on Fox are the only known people (besides relatives of MSNBC commentators) to watch MSNBC. That gives them the ammunition to bash them.

 

I see internet keeps coming up, and indeed if you have internet you can watch TV on it for free. So free internet might be a better option for some Americans. While for others who don't have pcs or know how to use one, we could have free TV. I might mention some countrys like Germany have free cable TV already, we are just behind the times as usual in dummying Americans down.

I suppose if we can afford to support Israel, give bonuses to exporters, pay for farmers flood insurance, and give a trillion dollars to WallStreet,........we can afford to give all Americans public access to free communications,...throw in cell phones as well as internet & cable.

 

Thanks for the correction!!! And great Link. So we still have 21% who can't get on the internet that could use free tv, and 78% who could use free internet access. I think it is a worth while endeaver.

 

LOL that makes sense. I wonder what the numbers would be if Fox switched off

 

Cons can't make it without their fantasy-fix mixed into it, and then complain about not being informed, or calling others liars and denouncing the opportuntty to actual reality news. lol I show these cons a video of clips of their elected officials in reality and they refuse to watch it. lol I think it has something to do with growing up playing video games.

 

I believe the government owns the Pentagon Channel (TPC)

 

I am sure they produce wonderful unbiased stuff.

 

Roughly 75% of US households have access to broadband. More still have lower speed connections to fit their limited needs. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2013/household-broadband-adoption-climbs-724-percent

Public broadcasting is unnecessary. It's nothing different from Sky News 24 or CNN. Chances are your local free TV channels have news that's every bit as good as that put out by a public broadcaster. That's the case in my country, where the ABC runs more of the same. It all uses the same sources (Reuters, AP, Fairfax, etc).

If you want real down to earth news you've got to venture a little closer to home. The internet is fantastic for this - it allows decentralized discussion like that which we're having now. Granted, this is a politics site, but look at news sites like The Young Turks - I don't share their perspective, but they have a pretty good thing going there. Lots of small time journalists who aren't afraid to speak their minds yet.

Impartiality is a myth. People blame the news media for being biased. It's really quite the opposite problem - they're neurotically obsessed with being unbiased. To the point where everything they say is guided by this ambition.

 

Why do we need Hussein Obama Pravda?

 

Something most folks don't realize is that PBS and NPR are not news stations. PBS does more educational programing for small children and weird variety shows on weekends then anything. I enjoy PBS and gladly support it. NPR granted does more news then PBS, but again there are lots of arts and entertainment programing too.

 

It would the republicans Pravda with a change in government.

 

Except it isn't. In Australia we have two public owned channels, SBS and ABC. Both are incredibly independent and are more or less the best source of news and general interest programming in the entire country. I'd say the biggest problem with American news media is that it lacks an anything analogous to those stations. Britain also has the BBC which is one of the best names in broadcasting, it's so good it's incomparable to anything privately run. Odds are if you find a half-way decent documentary, it was made by the BBC.

 

"It would the republicans Pravda with a change in government."

Taxcutter says:
I wonder if the Left has ever figured that one out. A Republican gets into office a puts Rush Limbaugh in charge of the American Pravda. How do you like them apples?

 

When you reflect on what you learned in that class you might want to ponder a couple of points.

Authoritarian regimes by definition control public information. Their means of doing so may include state run media as the only television channel available.


But the presence of a state-funded media, be it a tv channel or radio or whatever, doesn't mean that the state is authoritarian.

 

I never said that the US would be an autocracy if they fully funded PBS (which is completely unnecessary because they made hundreds of millions off of shows like Barney etc.) the point was is that you cannot have a truly independent media if they get their funding from anything other than their subscribers. If McDonalds started up a news channel would anyone honestly think that they would report unbiased news about Burger King? The same goes for publicly funded stations. They are beholden to their paymasters. And anyone who thinks that a sitting incumbent wouldn't coerce public media to further their end goals by promising greater funding or threatening to cut funding is delusional. I listened to NPR and WPR almost everyday for the first couple of years of the Iraq war. The overwhelming number of guests were professors and the like who were opposed to invading Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Its no coincidence that the Dems support more funding for NPR and the Reps want to get rid of it.

 

No but it is a step in that direction isn't it? So why do you think taxpayers should pay for TV that can't pay for itself because no one cares?

 

Oh, they're a good news station, but extremely biased. Did you see their (albeit older) documentary on Culloden? Anyone who is familiar with the history can see the flagrant Brit bias. [video=youtube;y0efUZQANaE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0efUZQANaE[/video]

The BBC's own Chief Radio Correspondent has criticized the organization for it's Anti-American bias. There have been multiple cases in which the BBC had reports/news written in such a way as to favor the Labour Party. They are biased. It's unrealistic to expect any news organization to be unbiased. The problem is that the implications and 'wrongness' of news bias changes when it's government-funded.

 

This Obama Pravda would have to share its miniscule audience with MSNBC.

 

It can be done. The first thing to realise is that commercial media is dependent on advertising. Advertising comes from business. News reporting, rather than entertainment programming, will be subject to censorship so that major advertisers are not portrayed in a bad light.


A state-run broadcaster without ties to government is possible. All that is needed is a statutory corporate body to be set up. Funding would be guaranteed by act of parliament. It would be as independent as you would get, although there would still be subtle influences, hopefully though that would be minimal and provided the authority was on its guard as well as being properly and independently audited, it could continue to be very objective.


This is the sort of thing that should be avoided - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-29/hamad-when-ideology-trumps-journalistic-integrity/5124720

 

Because it would not be beholden to sectional interests. Commercial tv is a business and has to get revenue from advertising to continue as a business. An independently-funded broadcaster owes nothing to anyone.

 

I don't see how a government run news channel could possibly be beneficial in the US. The government already tells us lies, half truths, and hides information. Hell the government even lies to itself (NSA chief lying to congress). It would not be an honest, unbiased program it would be straight government propaganda. Take a serious look at how the government addresses the people and if you still think that a government news network is a good idea tell me why.

 

It's been more or less successful everywhere else?

 

That doesn't really address the issue here though does it. Again our government is known to openly lie, misinform, and hide information from us. I wouldn't trust government news from Russia or China, would you?

 

Obama will always have propaganda arm NBC and their affilates.