Scientific American

  • Captain Howdy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    But then they would have to report on the systems funding them. That’s a bit too easy for corruption to take place in my opinion.

    • tiredofsametab@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Japan has a fee on any device capable of receiving a television signal (cost varies based on capabilities) used to fund the NHK and one reason was to keep the government influence out. Today, it still often has huge bias and avoids certain reporting and tows government lines. Sometimes translations over English or other languages completely changes what the people are really saying. NHK does produce some good programming, but they also are definitely up the ruling party’s ass.

    • mayonaise_met@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s why you have multiple outlets within a public system, governed by a public institution chosen by those outlets instead of any government. Subsidize those outlets by subscribers regardless of political affiliation.

      There are examples of this system or systems like it working, more or less, in various liberal democracies across the globe. And with across the globe I mean mainly within Europe.

    • CurlyMoustache@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      My country has a public broadcaster called NRK, which is funded by taxes paid by the people. By law they are funded by the public, but they have full editorial freedom (NRK-plaque) and they got a special board made up by members of the public to handle complaints and ethical issues. They are governed by Medietilsynet (eng.: The Norwegian Media Authority), and have a special responsibility to support democracy and public knowledge.

      NRK digs up dirt on and criticises members of Parliament (Storting), Parliament itself and the different ministries.

    • Nottalottapies@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It can be, and it’s a valid point. But some countries do publicly fund their government broadcaster and have safeguards in place to maintain journalistic integrity. It can be done properly.

      Australia is one: https://about.abc.net.au/who-we-are/the-abc-board/. The ABC regularly has fact checking articles for politicians on all sides and has exposed many a government scandal over the years.