NationStates Jolt Archive

Any suggestions, critique or interested parties wanting to assist in the development of this resolution or the task force that would be created, please drop a message.

Cheers~

Liberatis Philosophia Delegate to United Nations

------------------------------------
Resolution: Media Equality Task Force
Strength: Mild
Category: The Furtherment of Democracy

WHEREAS, unchecked and consolidated privately-owned, for-profit media corporations run the risk of excluding ideas and voices when profit is concerned, and

WHEREAS, state-controlled media entities run the risk of being a speaker box for State propaganda and perspective, and

WHEREAS, the role of media is to inform and educate the people, to allow an arena for all ideas, and to be for the public welfare, and

WHEREAS, the public should have complete access to all media mediums no matter the nature of their voice, therefore be it

RESOLVED, that a task force of willing nations be formed to brainstorm and develop a resolution pertaining to media equality that: a)does not prohibit private ownership of media, b)prohibits state ownership of media, c)develop mechanisms to regulate private ownership of the media, and d)allow all people to have a voice in the media, be it finally

RESOLVED, that such a task force develop a resolution within 30 days of enactment of this resolution to bring forth to the United Nations General Assembly.

Totally banning state controlled media will make nations with dictatorships and similar states try to kill this on sight. However making it so that non government channels are available along side state controlled media may be more paletteable for them.
Also I doubt if a resolution seeking to write another resolution is legal, make it set up a watchdog to ensure equality in the media instead.

Ideological ban, and therefore illegal.

I dunno if "state-controlled media" counts as an ideology...

However, that last line is no good at all.

I dunno if "state-controlled media" counts as an ideology...

However, that last line is no good at all.

But wouldn't that amount to the same as banning a certain type of economic system? Like, say banning state-run economies? Is media any different?

Hmm. But what's the ideology? Capitalism and Communism are ideologies. What's state-run media? It's an aspect of certain ideologies, I suppose, but I don't know if rises to the level.

The action clause, however, is a bit broad-sweeping in its aims...

Hmm. But what's the ideology? Capitalism and Communism are ideologies. What's state-run media? It's an aspect of certain ideologies, I suppose, but I don't know if rises to the level.

The action clause, however, is a bit broad-sweeping in its aims...

I'm just curious as to the extent of the ideological ban itself... Certainly a clause restricting government influence in media would alright... but if a nation's political system necessitates a state-run media and a state-run economy, is one subject to the ruleset and the other not? Or is that just a case-by-case interpretation situation?

I suppose this runs together as a legal challenge and as a dissension with the goal of the proposal itself. Now that I read further, the resolution doesn't actually ban state-run medias, it simply forms a task force of willing nations to devise a future resolution to ban state-run medias. I'm pretty sure that's illegal on it's own.

the resolution doesn't actually ban state-run mediasWell, that's its goal. Actually, re-reading this, it doesn't do anything, aside from demand a future Resolution.

Thanks for the feedback.

There is ideology in this now that you all mention it. The goal our nation is after is requiring a balance in media access. I fear completely state-run media, and consolidated private, for-profit media, run the risk of disenfranchising a segment of the population by limiting access and ideas.

What I need help with is hashing out resolution to allow for equal access to the media if either scenarios exists without curtailing the media policy of a nation too much.

And I agree it should be a resolution not a resolution-to-create-a-resolution.

Any thoughts on the above?

A resolution to call for a resolution should be illegal for doing nothing, and in this case for creating what is effectively a committee of national representatives, so yes, it should just do the job.

As it stands, it's not asking for the right thing anyway. As written, this wants to forbid all state-run media, leaving us completely at the mercy of consolidated for-profit media sources. In my book that's at least as bad as completely state-run media, and possibly worse; consolidated media companies are frequently big enough to be accountable to no one.

Would it be the right approach to require that no one media organisation (including governments) should own more than X% of the 'broadcast' capacity of any one medium, and no more than Y% of that of all media?