Fjordaniv

I would suggest a trip over to http://www.fair.org for a discussion of the merits of privately owned media. Essentially, the United States has slipped down the proverbial tree of free speech over the past few years, largely due to the corporatization of the media. I would gladly pay a liscencing fee if it involved sponsoring a state run channel that had more free reign. The focus on profits had bred nothing but mediocrity, conservatism and a monochromatic world view. Given the utter inferiority of much of the U.S. media these days, I'm suprised that someone could seriously entertaine the idea that any county should emulate it.

Privatize BBC, and this, yes THIS, could be all yours for the low price of free speech.

Fred

Ut

State-owned media would be a problem only if private-owned media were banned.

As it stands now, it provides a healthy form of competition. State-owned media prevents private-owned media from being too biased in favor of business interests while private-owned media prevents state-owned media from being too biased in favor of government.

Godot

There are some similarities between the CBC and the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation for the yanks), but the greatest difference between them is that the CBC is quasi-commercial. I think it was 4-5 years back that Chretien or one of his ministers was babbling about reducing state funding for the CBC even further for being openly critical of governmental policy.

In short, I like the idea of state-owned media because at the minimum, it helps preventing those in outlying communities from feeling ostracised. I find this resonates particularly well in both the Canadian and Australian experiences.

99Percent

This is the statist classical assumption that people are simply too stupid to know what is good for them, so yes, the government must supply a "good" product to the masses which in this case means an "objective" news casting.

What is overlooked is that government controlled media has its own agenda which is, of course, to promote statism itself.

Another important point, is that since a state budgeted media does not need to produce a profit, other privately owned channels must compete unfairly.

Evangelion

I'm with you there.

Most of the smaller countries in Australiasia now rely on our ABC to provide them with the accurate, unbiased coverage that they just can't get in their own countries.

PNG is a classic example.

Fjordaniv

And yet the quality of American television continues to plummet, the other major networks are/have adopted Faux News' acerbic "journalism," and original programming on many stations has fallen by the wayside.

There's no denying the a media controlled by the government will have an agenda, but compared with the utter drek churned out by the corporate conglomerations these days, NPR and PBS, the closest thing we have to "government run media," continue to produce some good material?far better than most. In fact, I would argue that many of the problems faced by public broadcasting are due to underwriting, the need to turn to private sources for funding.

As for the "statist" argument, it seems to me that this is the tact corporations have used for years to justify unsafe, irresponsible and destructive habits. When virtually all forms of media are under corporate control, they can dictate exactly what the "masses" can watch, simply because there is no alternative (other than another corporately owned station). The years of "competition" since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act (possibly the largest giveaway of public property in U.S. history) has led not to vastly improved television, by homogenization and mediocrity. Hardly an endorsement for a privately controlled media.

The key point regarding the "statist" position is this: corporations, as I have said, insist that they are merely responding to "consumer" demand when they produce a product. This in turn carries the implication that the critics of corporate policies, say smart growth advocates, environmentalists, or in our example, media critics such as Mark Crispin Miller, Noam Chomsky, David W. McChesney and Neil Postman are "elitists." The paradox is that the forces opposed to these groups and writers are extremely powerful, monied and influential, thereby being the true "elite," even though they attempt to wrap themselves in "populist" clothing. Then they continue to sell products that really AREN'T good for the people, the people continue to purchase the products, and when critics point out the destructive effects of this consumerism, the pro-corporates dust off the charges of elitism, beat the drum of "consumer freedom," and the debate virtually collapses. A local writer once commented on the attempts to restore stores on the mainstreats of towns and cities. He acknowledged that the old downtown was sociologically, environmentally and aesthetically superior to the big box stores, strip plazas and mega malls. However, as he was quick to point out, the people chose the latter, despite the drawbacks and damage. This is hardly an endorsement for the social responsibility and good sense of the common consumer. The masses may not be stupid, re se, but they certainly can be selfish and willing to be manipulated.

Given the collective apathy of the American people, their willingness to exchange civil liberties in favor of a tenuous safety, and their unwillingness to challenge a government that has enacted the worst economic and environmental policies in generations, it is certainly safe to say that many people really don't know what's best for society after all (an important distinction. Consumerism breeds selfishness, hence the current administrations admonishments to spend and consume). If they do maintain a degree of civic responsibility, it seems to have been overwhelmed by cant, rhetoric and a general sense that as long as the administration keeps planes from hitting tall buildings, those pink slips, deficits and polluted streams are prices worth paying.

Fred

excreationist

I think a while ago the ABC of Australia showed meetings involving people who supported Australia being a republic - when the current government was in support of the constitutional Monarchy. And a republic involves changes to the constitution so it is currently "unconstitutional" (Australians don't really use that word though).
Recently the ABC was criticised for being overly critical of the U.S. during the Iraq invasion (I think someone in the government criticised the ABC). Then later on their regular "media watch" program they responded to those criticisms a bit - here is a transcript. As far as I know, the ABC never apologized - it maintained that it was reporting objectively.
(IMO) The ABC doesn't seem to promote any particular party (such as the one currently in power) - but I guess it doesn't devote much time to alternative systems of government... (e.g. socialism) but maybe that stuff is too complex to learn from TV anyway... and if people are interested in the government they can go to the library, etc.

Jane Bovary

It's also given a voice to indigenous Australians.

I'd die without our ABC. For all it's faults, the ABC is so much more independent and courageous in its perspective.

What is overlooked is that government controlled media has its own agenda which is, of course, to promote statism itself.

Over here we consider the ABC to be owned by us..not the government of the day. In fact government is always complaining that the ABC is too critical and biased against the government. Though government may try to exert its influence through funding and various pressures, this has a limited effect as the ABC has a clear charter which protects its independence.

Free from the fetters of the advertising dollar and the pressures of the media giants, such a broadcaster is a welcome relief from the endless sameness of the commercial channels. You libertarians are big on choices aren't you? Well this gives us another choice. If state television were the ONLY choice it might be different.

Another important point, is that since a state budgeted media does not need to produce a profit, other privately owned channels must compete unfairly.

Gee...how tragic. Poor Kerry Packer, poor Rupert Murdoch.

Amen-Moses

I'd just like to point out a couple of things:

1) The BBC is not "State Run" but "State Funded", BUT the funding comes directly from a specific fee levied on every customer, therefore WE the people own the BBC and it bends over backwards to try and give us what we want.

2) The licence fee pays for BBC1, BBC2, CBBC, BBC3, BBC4, 24 hour News, BBC Parliament, Radio 1 to Radio 5 on AM, FM and Digital, Film Production, Sports sponsorship, Drama production, broadcasting education facilities and probably lots more.

In addition most of the output from the BBC becomes the fodder for many cable networks and independent channels all over the world, everything from Monty Python re-runs to documentaries on patagonian flower arranging. Without the BBC most of the worlds TV channels would be pretty empty.

Personally I listen to Radio 4 almost the entire time I'm driving and it is my main source of what is happening in the government, there is no other non-BBC source to replace it.

Amen-Moses

Monkeybot

99, I was pointing out that corporate run media outlets are plagued by sensationalism.

Why? Because media corporations are looking out for the bottom line. And they have to be particularly aggressive in getting and keeping viewers these days, thanks to the glut of information available on the Internet and competition from other news networks.

In the U.S., at least, this has led to a media environment that is plagued by soundbites and sensationalism. Look at the focus on the Laci Peterson case. While it was certainly a tragedy, does it really warrant the constant attention from major news networks? No, but it brings in the viewers.

It's not a case of the masses being "stupid," it's about corporations competing for viewers. That means they have to be bigger, more showy, more flashy in order to stand out from the other news outlets. In that competition journalistic integrity is often sacrificed for a more attention-grabbing story.

I certainly don't think the remedy to this is to have a solely state-funded media. That would be even worse. But, I think that state-funded can provide a good alternative to the sensationalism of Faux News and CNN.

So I'm not completely sure what you're disputing here. Are you saying that sensationalism doesn't exist, or that it's not a problem?

NPR & PBS have definitely been hampered by the frequent Congressional threats to cut funding, so I can agree somewhat with you. However, the commercial news networks today are certainly not much better. When was the last time you saw a real piece of investigative journalism on CNN?

Not necessarily, since state-funded outlets don't take money from advertisers.

I think part of the problem is in the competition -- what are media outlets competing for? They're competing for viewers, not for the best reporting. Like it or not, they're two very different goals. And we're seeing the problem with the former right now in the American media.