this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
620 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19089 readers
4129 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Scientific American

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ehhh... I'm not so sure. If it's publicly funded, what incentive is there to investigate government corruption?

Would Watergate still have happened if Nixon had the ability to cut the WaPo purse strings?

[–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

if that funding were guaranteed and beyond the influence of those government officials, then they wouldn’t have any fear of revenge-based budget cuts.

this could be accomplished by putting control of the funding into the hands of multiple levels of committee oversight so that no one person or even a single committee could threaten it.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

That's the problem, when it comes to government funding, nothing is guaranteed. :)

Witness:

https://youtu.be/fKy7ljRr0AA

[–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s why I suggested multiple levels of oversight. Also, they kept their funding.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They did, because Mr. Rogers defended it. If he hadn't been there to step up it likely would have been cut.

That's the problem. You get one party in power who doesn't like it for some reason, it's gone.

[–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What you’ve shown is the system -democracy - working as intended. I’m not sure how that’s a criticism.

That’s the problem. You get one party in power who doesn’t like it for some reason, it’s gone.

except your “evidence” proves the exact opposite.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Kinda like how Reagan removed the fairness doctrine... Oh, sure, any ol' President could have it restored... 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Obama, 2+ years of Biden... Hey, it's only been since 1987... 36 years... I'm sure it will be back any day now...

[–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

what does that have to do with government funding of journalism?

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My argument is that anything the government grants you can also be taken away... and if the counter is "But it can be restored too..."

Yeah, still waiting on the Fairness Doctrine, which, yeah, also has a direct impact on journalism.

[–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My argument is that anything the government grants you can also be taken away… and if the counter is “But it can be restored too…”

it’s easy to win your own arguments when you put words in my mouth. why even bother pretending to have a debate when all you want is to put on a performance?

you can wallow in defeatist nihilism. I have better things to do.

[–] theodewere@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

this is why we protect the speech and the journalism.. it's like the whole vaccine argument all over again..

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It depends entirely on how the funding arrangement is enshrined. Some mechanisms are easier to undo and some are practically impossible to undo.

So while you could say that nothing in our world is guaranteed, it’s going too far to say we shouldn’t have publicly funded media because any old president can just snap his fingers and make it all go away. That’s not the case.

And even if funding were easy to pull, that would mean no public media until someone else snaps their fingers and restores it.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

Kinda like how Reagan removed the fairness doctrine... Oh, sure, any ol' President could have it restored... 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Obama, 2+ years of Biden... Hey, it's only been since 1987... 36 years... I'm sure it will be back any day now...

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Thanks for sharing this.

[–] Turkey_Titty_city@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

this is why universities have endowments. and why they become convulted messes.

of course, they don't use them like they should, but that's another issue entirely.

sadly people are greedy and short sighted, no matter the institution. often the committees want to reward themselves above all else.

[–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That’s the problem with charity— free reporting becomes a privilege bestowed to a select a few by private institutions and subject to their whims rather than a right guaranteed to everyone by the government. 

[–] JohnOnABuffalo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Publicly funded doesn't mean government controlled, PBS and NPR only get about 10% of their budgets from the government. Most of it comes from Viewers like You! (Donations)

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

NPR's two largest revenue sources are corporate sponsorships and fees paid by NPR Member organizations

https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances

39% corporate and 31% fees, compared to 12% from contributions. I think federal funding grants fall under the 8% "other" in that breakdown.