Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- I do not understand how this fits into any conventional political worldview. Why should the public taxpayer dollars fund a journalism outfit that then follows its own agenda rather than the one set forth by the democratically elected government? How is this democratic?
From 1972 to 1988, anti-socialist Republicans won four elections by landslide margins (8, 10, 18, and 23 points). The coverage of NPR during that time was quite sympathetic toward socialism, and certainly didn't reflect the ideology of the electorate. (My dad, who is a soft-on-socialism Democrat, called it "Radio Moscow"). How does it make sense for taxpayers to pay government journalists who have a fundamentally different view of the world?
Imagine the opposite: Obama's America being forced to pay for journalists who approach the world from the viewpoint of Christian fundamentalism. How would that be democratic?
by rayiner - What we have now is a government that tries to shut down all news outlets that are not comprised of journalists who approach the world from the viewpoint of Christian nationalism fundamentalism.
How is that any better? How is that democratic and pluralistic?
by krunck - >How is this democratic?
Because the people want it? You are treating democracy as a kind of populist authoritarianism where unwelcome viewpoints are suppressed. Generally We the People value (or at least used to value) free and fair discussion.
>NPR
Mostly irrelevant in this discussion. The large majority of NPR's funding has always come from member stations and "listeners like you".
>Imagine the opposite: Obama's America being forced to pay for journalists who approach the world from the viewpoint of Christian fundamentalism.
What is there to imagine? Obama's America did in fact pay journalists to do just that. Public media is generally supposed to present a diversity of viewpoints, and leaving out religion would be doing the public a disservice in that regard.
by ionioagnio - The government is run by politicians, so I don’t see that being a possibility anymore.by iAMkenough
- So this article is obviously very American, but I'm assuming high quality state-funded (idk about 'government' - funded) journalism isn't exactly rare around the world?
Here in Ireland RTÉ (heavily state funded) provides free, high quality, independent journalism that doesn't pull punches on reporting on failures of the state, including government. The brits have the BBC, which from what I gather works similarly.
Sample of two, but I'd wager this isn't exactly a rare model.
by CatMustard