NationStates Jolt Archive

I am the representative for the nation of Zarthura, and I have recently submitted "The Global News Initiative", a very necessary and unheard of issue to the United Nations for a general vote.

This is a serious issue worldwide today, and is not your run-of-the-mill "repeal issue number xxx because it is flawed by..." sort of deal.

A great number of delegates will benefit from this issue significantly. I do hope you will consider supporting it for a general vote.

The link to the page is below, the issue is called "The Global News Initiative" and it is currently on the third page of the proposal list.

http://www.nationstates.net/11759/page=UN_proposal/start=0

I thank you for your time and consideration!

Sincerely,

~Zarthura

63 Already, Just 40 More And It Goes Official!!!! Lets See Some Action Ladies And Gents!

As a suggestion, you should post the text of your proposal; not everyone will go look it up, and it will make quoted discussion easier.

We are very pleased to see a new member bringing a relatively new issue to discussion in the General Assembly. I cannot personally recall many similar proposals in the past; the nearest was one to broadcast only UN proceedings. This is obviously a much bigger project. We cannot, as yet, support it, however, for we have some concerns with the proposal.

The first two are relatively trivial. It is probably in the wrong category: Free Press would be more suitable. And it is written as a rather sprawling essay, rather than as a law; you do not have to use introductory/operative clause format, but your presentation does make the proposal's exact requirements difficult to discern.

The third objection is that the following section seems to violate the rules on committees (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465):
the material presented in the UN broadcast would be reviewed by a diverse panel of various government leaders to assure that it was fair and necessary programming only
It would be better (and more likely to be legal) to designate this duty to an independent panel. I can't think of any suitable existing UN agencies, though at a stretch the education committee, the UN Educational Advancement Fund, could be used.

Fourth, we have some technical problems with the, relatively small, substantive section of the proposal:
The United Nations is the perfect medium from which to broadcast a free radio, Internet, and television-assessable network of streaming international news, available in all nations, translated into to each of the official global languages.
First, given the UN is involved in international affairs, it is quite possibly not the perfect 'medium'. For example, how would it deal with a member nation's angry resignation from the organization? Or a damning report on UN corruption? This is not to say that the UN is necessarily a very bad choice; it's simply not obviously better than any other large organization. A truly independent news source would not be run by a political alliance, but by an editor with a totally free hand.

Second, and the concerns about the committee I expressed above notwithstanding, it's not clear at all how editorial decisions will be made. Who is to decide which issues to cover, or to prioritise?

Third, this is an enormous task. I'm not usually one to raise funding issues, but I have to ask: is it going to be worth the absolutely colossal expense involved (unless advertising is to be sought, which raises a million and a half other issues) to produce one extra news channel, when we have no particular guarantees, your rhetorical flamboyance aside, that it will be any better than, for example, PINA (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/pina.html)?

So, I'm certainly very interested in this proposal and I hope you're willing to suggestions on drafting it, but at present there are too many concerns looming for us to be able to add our name to the list of approvers.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Department of UN Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

P.S. A direct link (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=news).

Congratulations on your incredible number of approvals. I know how difficult it is to get even a dozen people to sign on to proposals sometimes!

Unfortunately, I cannot lend my support. This amounts to a state-run media, which I fear will become exactly what you intend to avoid - heavily biased and full of spin. This is particularly likely due to your formation of what amounts to a multi-national editorial board -- any real news would get so hopelessly bound in bureaucratic red tape the public would never see it. The only thing everyone will agree on will be useless filler like "Mittens the Kitten rescued from tree" or "Squirrel learns to ski."

I would be more inclined to support a state-supported news organization in which the UN had absolutely no editorial control... something more like the PBS or BBC of legend.

I can only thank you both for your accurate and very relevant concerns.

Of course the overwhelming cost of a project that only brings the world the short-stack breakfast of a single, most likely somewhat dry, news station can be slightly daunting. However, all powdered-wig-laws aside, there are many nations who simply do not have the basic right of access to an un-spun network of crucial information. Thus is why I listed it under "Human Rights" and as mass media grows, the web of news-like lies is undermining the original purposes of technological advances such as cable television and the Internet. The result being a growing mass of advertisement-sucking, Paris-Hilton-wannabe, Starbucks-drinking teens who know more about the results of American Idol than they do about global terrorism, the loom of a war for fresh water, or even their own nation's Presidential elections.

The "materials" that came into common use in the age of the "material girl" have the potential to change the world for the better, but as of late, even the most freed of nations are finding that this techno-generation is giving birth to a veritable Renaissance of ignorant citizens.

The cost of a movement to begin the remedy to this ever growing plague in already connected places pales in comparison to the debts our world will find itself unable to pay if we allow the general masses to continue on this designer-bag clad downward slope. And it's value only rises when you consider the number of places we'd reach, where unbiased and unfiltered news has never existed at all.

But, I would be more than happy to cut some of the "rhetoric flamboyance" (I use these quotations in good humor, not passive defence, I do know that I have an informal tone, I am a published fiction author and an aquaintance of Max Barry, so I gave myself the right-to-overwrite) and address this issue with a dried-eye were this initiative to fail and require resubmission.

And as far as the current and "sprawling" proposal goes, the necessary details, though slightly written with political grandeur, are all there in some form, three major mediums of connection, free to the public, provided by the United Nations, and regulated by a panel of leaders who would hold electoral-like discussions on what was and was not crossing the legal boundaries of image restricted naitons. And, plainly, I trust that the United Nations would be able to push this through with co-operation. To believe it would become choked in bureaucracy and veto only shows a pessimistic, if not counter-productive, view of an organization that was formed for international discussion, and multi-cultural harmony, not prolonged dispute.


TO ALL WHO HAVE OR WILL SUPPORT MY ISSUE, I THANK YOU!

AND WITH LESS THAN TWO HOURS LEFT, I THANK THOSE OF YOU WHO CAME THROUGH IN A PINCH AND MOLDED THE SLIGHTLY IDEAL THOUGHTS OF A FORUM VIRGIN AND A NATIONSTATES NEWCOMER, INTO A VALIDATED VOTE.

We congratulate the nation of Zarthura for bringing such an important issue to the table, and would like to note that this proposal has now reached the number of required approvals.

Regretfully, though, we will be unable to either approve of this proposal or vote for it if/when it comes to vote, as the objections raised by Liaison Benson are all too true.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian United Nations Ambassador

Sadly, yes, illegal. A spot of clean up (category, committee) and give it another whirl. List of supporting Delegates follows:

Approvals: 116 (WZ Forums, Intelligenstan, Quoziced, Yangoon, United States of Kamon, West Lark, Lewis and Clark, Ventei, Los Santos - Excelsior, Warsaw and Poland, Cordova I, Betelgeuse XII, Embarc, Aatesio, Graalium, Alpacadom, Brazykystan, Rosmnia, Wicked229, Minyos, Indian Gangs, Black Empire, United Kana, General DeSanctis, The Atreidond Islands, The Tobin, Chazzistan, Ascendas, Bulskaria, Ransium, New Chalcedon, Sancte Michael, Bijayistan, Dracodagger, Santa clauses8, Mikel_aa, Henderson-Hasselbach, Rotovia-, Jake and Elwood Blues, Fabingrad, Charlotte Ryberg, DesMonies, Kyonian, Cruciblious, Monkeys with TommyGuns, Amalda, Sci, Keydude, Science and Soul, Amyrkah, Bay Islands, Shepherd Derrial Book, Paradiszian Embassy, Great Rai, Most Excellent Pharaoh, Trecalaenia, Fwends, The Crazy King, Crockeria, Ozakia, Vandreka, QWERTY9223, ThEnding, Althzakar, The rabid platypuses, Agent Death and Blu, Southern Realm, Forriastor, Brunelian BG advocates, Gina Toscano, The World Soviet Party, Likititi, MercyMe, Yshurak, Baailistan, Kingesly, Misplaced States, Leekastin, Baby-Paws, Lunatic Retard Robots, Kyraea, Nurdia, Saudi burmia, De Oro, ERS Republica Defender, Groovy Llamas, Waitesland, Virillia, Hjul, Airgetlam, Voyles, Slices Right, Assbitches, Piratical Descent, Neo Ozia, Colbert Report, Now with Sprinkles, Svintell, Belarum, Camericana, Stephanephpolis, Slovalia, Shangri La-La-La, Body Parts Ressurected, East Hylia, Boom Shacka, RUSH-DOM, Cranberry Mice, Eiga-Baka, Corrupted Countries, Isura, Ithuvanian Republic, Joachiim, Jamkong, Yakaslovenia, Our Lord Hedlund)

Damn. We could have gotten to vote on something. I like clicking things.

I get the feeling you'll be able to click on something a bit misleading in a couple of updates or less. ;)

This isn't to bad of an idea really, but it needs some work before it's ready for vote.

This proposal strikes at a previously low-profile issue; good work, Zarthura.

But, I raise a problem:

The issue is that many do not have access to fair, unbiased news. This is a valid issue--it is certainly a problem. BUT! This proposal does not attack the ROOT of the problem.

To use real-life examples (this forum doesn't seem to say IC needed), look at North America. In the US and Canada, most news sources are fairly unbiased. (obviously, everything is biased in some way because everyone has opinions)
There are exceptions to this unbiased-ness--look at CBC. A government funded news service. Oh, it's good, but IT is BIASED, baby.

Look at China and places like that, now and in history. No fair news there! Why? The government a), bans any programs they don't like and b), makes their own programs... biased ones.. lying ones...

Obviously, the ROOT of the problem IS government AND governmental organizations INTERFERING with news and such. Although this proposal would LIKELY be a temporary fix, it is only another example of government interfering. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, honourable delegates.

Azemica finds that the only sure way to strike at the root of this problem is to pass a resolution mandating that no nation shall interfere in any way with broadcasting and such.

What you call 'prolonged dispute', I call 'drafting'. When we produced our resolution on slavery, some suggested it should be rammed through right away; some even suggested the fact we took so long demonstrated the UN to be insufficiently committed to the cause. The way I see it, it shows the UN cared so much about slavery it was willing to spend months getting the exact wording right. The end proposal was, in my opinion, all the better for that. Furthermore, the drafting process can indeed be a function of the 'multi-cultural harmony' to which you allude: some of our diplomatic relations have been forged through coming together to work on a piece of legislation. As Ambassador Flibble is fond of saying, "Getting a resolution passed is a sprint, not a marathon."

You haven't in any way answered the question about cost. You seem to be saying it would be worth it, although mainly in pandering to your nascent hatred of your peers. For what it's worth, I enjoy a nice corporate coffee and a browse of the celebrity gossip blogs before I fire up the office computer and begin my work for the government and the UN; I don't see the two as a contradiction. I'm not enacting some grand political point about the price of information. I'm saying that some nations will need assistance in building the infrastructure involved, and then that actually broadcasting will be a massive undertaking, given you want to involve television and radio transmissions.

Thus, given some news channels already exist to cover international affairs, might the UN's funds be better spent on inspecting WMD sites, or building clean wells, or monitoring fair elections, or promoting international health education?

I'd also like to repeat the question about editorial control.

-- Samantha Benson

As Ambassador Flibble is fond of saying, "Getting a resolution passed is a sprint, not a marathon."Psst, you've got it backwards there. I believe my saying is, "Getting a resolution passed is a marathon, not a sprint."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Psst, you've got it backwards there. I believe my saying is, "Getting a resolution passed is a marathon, not a sprint."
That is the stupidest thing I have ever done in my life. D'oh.