[Ideational Ontarian]

I believe in a mostly free market system for the media but I can accept state ownership of a single channel for cultural reasons. Of course, a gov't agency would oversee the industry to prevent monopolies. However, I am FIRMLY against any kind of forced national content rules like we have in Canada.

[Kon]

I think that the media should be in the hands of the people.

Independant media is a powerful force and I believe that if used correctly it could make both state owned and capitalist media obsolete.

[Kapanda]

Quangos like the BBC seem to be effective, along with corporate media. Obviously the problem with corporate media is that depending on the owenership it will have heavy laft or right leaning bias, but bias is something that is impossible to completely remove from media outlets. The great advantage that coporate medias have is their funding.

[KurtFF8]

But there is a similar problem of bias with state-owned media. For example if there were a news channel owned by the United States Govt (that the public would have access to) I doubt it would be critical or show to many critical views of the war (if it did, it would probably be something like what I talk about in the straw man thread)

[NYYS]

You're never going to have a perfectly independent media. It's got to get money from somewhere, whether through the taxpayers (and therefore the government) or corporations. Or all donations and be smaller and less effective. Personally I'm all for corporations as the lesser of those evils, after all I'd much rather have news that doesn't air bad things about certain drugs than news that doesn't air bad things about the government.

[Gnote]

Some structure where the media is neither government owned nor privately owned would be the most preferable, though it's logistically difficult. Are there many media conglomerates that are community owned?

Failing that, government owned media is preferable to privately owned media, for the simple fact that government media is at least loosely accountable to the public. Private media is accountable to nothing but money.

[NYYS]

Are there many media conglomerates that are community owned?

Then you just have them telling the community what they want to hear.

Private media is accountable to nothing but money.

Better be accountable to money than accountable to the government. What if George Bush got to decide what goes on the news?

[KurtFF8]

What if George Bush got to decide what goes on the news?

Well the current US government wouldn't be my number 1 candidate for an example of well run state media.

Are there many media conglomerates that are community owned?

Well the problem with this would be the resources. They couldn't cover international issues as well as big corporations can as big corporations have many more resources to send reporters over seas and hire better journalists, etc.

Of course there is a conflict of interest occasionally with corporate media (well maybe more than occasionally)

Which is a contradiction of the media, as they have the interest of profit in mind at all times, which is not the same as simply reporting the news.

[Gnote]

Better be accountable to money than accountable to the government.

By what logic? That's like saying it's better to have zero testicles than one. Sure, two is better, but one does the job.

What if George Bush got to decide what goes on the news?

That's why you don't elect a horrible fucking moron to your highest office.

[KurtFF8]

That's why you don't elect a horrible fucking moron to your highest office.

If we had a "reply of the day" that would be it.

[NYYS]

By what logic? That's like saying it's better to have zero testicles than one. Sure, two is better, but one does the job.

How do you figure that at all? If the government owns the media they can block scandals, power abuses, etc. The media is the primary channel to the people of the government's activities, you'd basically be giving them carte blanche to do whatever they want since all you're going hear about is "we liberated this country and they were happy mission accomplished."

If corporations own the media the worst that can happen is we don't hear about Phizer's latest drug being turned down by the FDA or whatever.

That's why you don't elect a horrible fucking moron to your highest office.

Like it wouldn't happen anywhere else. A world leader would have to be an absolute idiot to let a media he controls trample on his administration.

[Gnote]

How do you figure that at all? If the government owns the media they can block scandals, power abuses, etc. The media is the primary channel to the people of the government's activities, you'd basically be giving them carte blanche to do whatever they want since all you're going hear about is "we liberated this country and they were happy mission accomplished."

You could replace every instance of 'the government' in that statement with 'a corporation.' The differences is that the government is, in a democracy, ultimately accountable to the people.

If corporations own the media the worst that can happen is we don't hear about Phizer's latest drug being turned down by the FDA or whatever.

False.

If the corporations own the media, we will hear whatever makes corporations more money.

Like it wouldn't happen anywhere else. A world leader would have to be an absolute idiot to let a media he controls trample on his administration.

No he wouldn't. A good national leader would see that government controlled media reported independently and impartially. All we have to do now is elect a good government. That's unlikely to ever happen of course (especially in America), as it would require people to place more weight on the leadership qualities of the individual than on the colour of his suit, or the prominence of his drawl.

[NYYS]

No he wouldn't. A good national leader would see that government controlled media reported independently and impartially.

Great, we'll hope we just get an unlimited string of "good" governing from now till eternity.

If the corporations own the media, we will hear whatever makes corporations more money.

Even if that were the case, that's far less harmful to the average citizen and country as a whole than the people having no idea whatsoever about the government's activities.

In addition, you act as if one corporation would control all of the media. There would be dueling corporations with opposing interests, different groups with different opinions all funding it. Instead of a government owned media, where it is one group and one opinion.

[Dan]

I believe in a free media.

Whoever is willing and able should be allowed to own and operate a free press.

Failing that, government owned media is preferable to privately owned media, for the simple fact that government media is at least loosely accountable to the public. Private media is accountable to nothing but money.

Private media is accountable to its viewers (ie. the public) because of money.

This is how it works:

the media owner creates programming to make money through advertising -> Viewers (ie. the public) watch what they want -> what the viewers watch makes advertising money, what they don't doesn't -> the media owner makes money based on giving the viewers what they want.

It's much more effective a method of accountability then public, where it goes like this:

the public channel puts out program -> guaranteed public funds means it doesn't have to be anything anybody wants or cares about and doesn't have to rely on what the public wants directly -> so the public tries to effect the public media through voting -> once every four years they vote for a party who makes a large platform covering possibly dozens of issues, one of which may be public media (not to mention half the votes are wasted by a piss poor electoral system) -> a party comes to power -> this party may or may not keep it's promise on the public media -> should this promise be kept the party's policy is then "interpreted" and "implemented" by a number of unaccountable bureaucrats -> small changes may occur, but it is unlikely

Which seems more effective to you?

[MB.]

Free subsidized media. No adds.

[Gnote]

Great, we'll hope we just get an unlimited string of "good" governing from now till eternity.

We 'get' the government that we 'want.'

Even if that were the case, that's far less harmful to the average citizen and country as a whole than the people having no idea whatsoever about the government's activities.

This point is debatable, and if true, is simply more support for the need for us to transform our 'political value system.' If we elect leaders based on their philosophies and their positions on the relevant issues, we will have governments that will govern properly.

This is the fundamental difference between private media and state-run media: state run media is accountable, private media is not.

Private media is accountable to its viewers (ie. the public) because of money.

This is how it works:

the media owner creates programming to make money through advertising -> Viewers (ie. the public) watch what they want -> what the viewers watch makes advertising money, what they don't doesn't -> the media owner makes money based on giving the viewers what they want.

No. Just like in the rest of consumer society, here is how it works:

Private media decides what people want to watch, and then it tells them that they should watch it - over and over again.

The 'want to watch' phenomenon shouldn't even enter into the equation, particularly where news is concerned. News is the reporting of what happened. 'What happened' should not be filtered through any form of vetting process. Questions like 'how can we spin this such that it will further our position and eventually earn us more profit' - questions that private media asks itself - should not be part of the equation.

[Ideational Ontarian]

Private media decides what people want to watch, and then it tells them that they should watch it - over and over again.

False. If the media decided what you wanted to watch there wouldn't be thousands of failed pilots and there wouldn't be any shows canceled due to low ratings.

Having a 100% government owned media would require a gigantic bureaucratic agency. The logistics are unthinkable, ridiculous really.

[wonder cow]

At one time the rules were strict about how many media outlets, and of what type, any one individual or company could own in any given market in the US.

Over the years these rules have been watered down if not eliminated.

This is a bad thing, IMO.

[Dan]

Private media decides what people want to watch, and then it tells them that they should watch it - over and over again.

Hmmm. Then why do highly hyped programs fail? Why do ratings rise and fall? Why do once popular shows become no longer popular?

The 'want to watch' phenomenon shouldn't even enter into the equation, particularly where news is concerned.

So you beleive that the media should tell people what they should watch?

News is the reporting of what happened. 'What happened' should not be filtered through any form of vetting process.

What happened according to whom?

The Israeli soldier, the Hamas militant, and the Palestinian citizen almost always seem to have a different version of events.

When discussing 9/11 should teh accepted story be used, or should we beleive the "truthers"?

There has to be vetting there somewhere.

Questions like 'how can we spin this such that it will further our position and eventually earn us more profit' - questions that private media asks itself - should not be part of the equation.

So rather, we have public media, asking "how can we spin this to best continue our funding?" "Make sure the Reformers don't win or they'll shut us down."

[The Antiist]

Media shouldn't be controlled by corporation nor by the government. It should be a purely independent organization with the sheer desire to portray the news as objective as possible.

There should probably be a medium which functions as a motivation for the media to provide neutrality and which also funds it indirectly from the government. This medium should, however, be the sole controller over the whole progress. How such authority could be entrusted to a mere independent medium rests entirely on the integrity and dedication of this institution.

Note that my ideas about this in the practical sense will probably change in the future, but the essence is that media shouldn't be controlled by either corporations nor the government.