Public funding for journalism and the arts is certainly part of the answer. Democracy is healthier where public media funding is high.
Democracy, here, is defined as whatever it is that luvvies like this week. What is not meant is that as the peoples’ tatste changes so too does what luvvies boradcast this week – you know, reflection of the democratic will.
Obvious solution is obvious:
to public media endowment funds answerable only to their governing boards, and nominations to which should stretch across multiple electoral cycles.
Creating such a “meta-endowment” at an EU level, and charging it with being a supplementary source of funding for national, regional and local public service media, journalism, publishing and cinema across Europe
Take the money from a level still abiding by the luvvies views and give it, in perpetuity, to the luvvies. For we cannot just have the people deciding things now, can we?
Doesn’t sound very democratic to me, certainly. Sounds more like the road to fully automated luxury gay communism.
For myself, if they want money they need to get their subscribers to pay for it or sell their bottom down the Dilly.
The reason they don’t is they know their subscribers might pay a few pounds for content, but aren’t prepared to fund the lives of luxury that they feel entitled to .
Entitlement being the main thing here.
I believe this is what they mean when they say “democracy”.
I have excellent news for Mr. hurst though! He can be hit with a variety of Socialist taxes for, say, 20% of his wealth and that will go some way to addressing the issues he seeks to. And why would he object to putting his own contribution in when the goal is such a self-evident good?
I’d also argue that two tyrannies- the UK and North Korea, make the argument that increased public funding of the media makes democracy LESS likely. Both the BBC and the more moderate KCNA are state funded and neither can be considered democratic so if anything it’s an argument for removing state funding altogether.
Public media funding used to be called buying a newspaper.
With ads in it.
Vot is the unit of measurement for a healthy democracy?
Lol, just kidding. I know the ‘democracy is healthy’ schtick is not intended in the first place as a good faith argument.
As spoofed already in 1970 (!) by notably a french scenarist and artist….
Democracy is healthier where public media funding is high.
Citation needed.
When you consider China, Russia, Hungry under Orban and the like it’s probably inversely proportional to government media spending.
Any state-funded media is going to become a mouthpiece for the state. You can see this corruption in our national museums and in charities that received funding.
Journalists tend to adopt the viewpoint of the people giving them money. We’ve seen this in Canada where there’s a large subsidy given to many newspapers etc.
The luvvies used to complain that newspapers would adopt the viewpoints of the ad purchasers. Funny how they still complain about that, but nothing about how the government cheese does the same thing.
Conquest’s 2nd law of politics:
Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.
The fun thing here is these fuckers are already left-wing. Can you be left of left?
Affected how? They don’t look like victims. Another Guardian appeal to pity for unsympathetic characters.
McCarthy was right, dumbass.
How dare they?
You trash the owner, so they take action. You are free to denounce. You are not free of consequences. Your solution? Get government to buy Canal+. You aren’t fooling anyone. What you really want is for government to seize Canal+. Kill the owner and take his stuff. To save democracy.
McCarthy was indeed right overall. Though as a senator he chaired the United States Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which looked overwhelmingly at government institutions.
What lefties are typically thinking of when they bleat about McCarthy is the House Un-American Activities Committee, which was very much a mix of Democrats and Republicans.
And the Hollywood blacklist was not, in any way, legally binding. It was purely an industry decision.
Does any single person believe that they will tolerate nominations by right-wing politicians?
“Reporter” + “government money” = “Whores.”