NationStates Jolt Archive

The media should be owned by an independent state authority, apart and impartial from the government of the day, which distributes public revenue to individual mass organizations, such as trade unions, student organizations or whatever proportionate to the amount of members they have, in true democratic principles. So an organization of 1000 members (which can only be in one organization at a time) would get much less public revenue than an organization of 10,000, which would get more revenue and thus more say because they represent the views of more people.

So if corporations wanted to have media say they would have to compete with the other mass organizations for revenue, which would be distributed equally proportionate to numbers. As a rule of thumb, it would be illegal for any organization to use their own private funds to finance their own printing of newspapers, magazines etc, all printing would be controlled by the impartial and independent aforementioned body, to be financed through tax, the printing equipment and staff for this public body would be got by compulsory expropriation of all news agencies.

And although it would be a government department, it's content for each newspaper (for each organization) would be decided by the organization itself, the department just prints and distributes it. The amount printed and resources devoted to each newspaper would be decided as I said by the amount of members they have, and the newspapers would be sent only to those people whom the organization they are apart of (for free, levied by tax), but they can also buy other organizations' newspapers. The impartial government department will of course print it's own news, but this would be purely technical and non-partisan data: births and deaths, stock market, public announcements, jobs, weather and all necessary stuff etc...

No, just No.

Bagurkgagurk???

What about non-print media, or the internet? Would you bar news providers from posting their stories on the internet, unless it's through this magical printing department.

Or how about the super-massive size of the government department you're proposing. It would be simply gigantic.

Frankly, your idea sucks.

Wow. That's such a comprehensive rejection of the freedom of speech I can hardly believe it.

Wow. That's such a comprehensive rejection of the freedom of speech I can hardly believe it.

AP only believes in freedom of speech for those who agree with him.

The media should be owned by an independent state authority, apart and impartial from the government of the day, which distributes public revenue to individual mass organizations, such as trade unions, student organizations or whatever proportionate to the amount of members they have, in true democratic principles.

Why the hell should my tax dollars go to organizations whose principles I may or may not agree with? Why should I have to help them get their message out in any way?

So an organization of 1000 members (which can only be in one organization at a time) would get much less public revenue than an organization of 10,000, which would get more revenue and thus more say because they represent the views of more people.

Even if we ignore the fact that this would marginalize smaller groups, limiting all people to only one group would not only be difficult (or impossible) to enforce, it's also hardly democratic. If I am for environmental regulation, and for a revised immgration policy, I should not be forced to choose between them.

So if corporations wanted to have media say they would have to compete with the other mass organizations for revenue, which would be distributed equally proportionate to numbers.

So wait...corporations get tax revenue too? No thanks.

As a rule of thumb, it would be illegal for any organization to use their own private funds to finance their own printing of newspapers, magazines etc, all printing would be controlled by the impartial and independent aforementioned body, to be financed through tax, the printing equipment and staff for this public body would be got by compulsory expropriation of all news agencies.

There goes freedom of the press...

...the printing will be "impartial and independent" only until it becomes inconvenient for government.

As for the expropriation, that only works in the nation in question, unless you plan to make foreign news sources illegal...not exactly "fair" or "democratic"

And although it would be a government department, it's content for each newspaper (for each organization) would be decided by the organization itself, the department just prints and distributes it.

I think I'll stick with multiple sources thanks...I don't trust government any more than I do media coroporations. At least with corporations theres some options, unlike a government monopoly.

The amount printed and resources devoted to each newspaper would be decided as I said by the amount of members they have, and the newspapers would be sent only to those people whom the organization they are apart of (for free, levied by tax), but they can also buy other organizations' newspapers.

So popular views steamroll and marginalize unpopular views...exactly the kind of thing we would ideally try to avoid in media.

The impartial government department will of course print it's own news, but this would be purely technical and non-partisan data: births and deaths, stock market, public announcements, jobs, weather and all necessary stuff etc...

Maybe at first...I'd wager it wouldn't stay that way for very long.

If you really wanted to undermine the media as a watchdog and as an independent institution, this would be a great way to go about it.

how about instead we make government interference of "the media" illegal and allow anyone with enough wherewithall to print a newspaper the right to do so?

the only role government should play is in keeping whatever amount of control of bandwidths is necessary for an orderly running of tv, radio, cellphone, emergency services, shortwave, and other limited systems.

Pravda?

I like the idea, only because I also like the idea of a pirate radio station, yaaaaarr.

That would be a colossal bureaucracy in the vein of Pravda, and it would only be a matter of time before the agency becomes a censor and restricts or publishes only things acceptable to the people in power.

Truth is not democratic.

Giving control of the media to those who represent the most people is not much better than giving control of the media to those who have the wealth.

Honestly I'm not sure what alternative I would propose, though... it's a difficult question.

That would be a colossal bureaucracy in the vein of Pravda,

What would be bureaucratic about it? Their job is to print and to follow a simple formula for funding.

it would only be a matter of time before the agency becomes a censor and restricts or publishes only things acceptable to the people in power.

They have not been given any censoring power at all, in AP's proposal; they cannot abuse their power because they don't have any.

TWhat would be bureaucratic about it? Their job is to print and to follow a simple formula for funding.

The massive printing infrastructure that exists in countries like the United States, and the bureaucracy that one would have to go through to get type set and all that taken care of.



They have not been given any censoring power at all, in AP's proposal; they cannot abuse their power because they don't have any.

Just because a government agency doesn't have a power legally tasked to it, doesn't mean they'll follow the rules. Look at the Bush administration and warrantless wiretaps, if you'd like a clear cut example of this.

AP, what about the random guys with mimeographs of photocopiers? What if they were to suddenly start printing a newsletter independent of the state? Would you punish them for that?

It's not exactly unheard of, you know there was this very tiny group in Munich during the days of the Third Reich, called themselves Die Weisse Rose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose).

The massive printing infrastructure that exists in countries like the United States, and the bureaucracy that one would have to go through to get type set and all that taken care of.

You could always leave the printing infrastructure unnationalized and simply have public funding.

Just because a government agency doesn't have a power legally tasked to it, doesn't mean they'll follow the rules.

Yeah, but in this case if they break the rules, it'll be pretty obvious.

How about this? Private industries control the media. People support the media by watching, buying, and etc. Thus, media is funded proportionally to its support, and there is no absolute total complete elimination of freedom of speech and the press.

You could always leave the printing infrastructure unnationalized and simply have public funding.

The mechanics of this seem questionable. What if someone refuses to accept public funding?



Yeah, but in this case if they break the rules, it'll be pretty obvious.

Ah, but it would seem that this is the government agency in charge of providing the people with the information they use to govern their policy decisions. If they break the rules it's an awful lot easier for them to cover it up. That kind of defeats the purpose of the matter.