Where do you go for news?

Originally posted by normbenign
Similar to the subsidies given to PBS. That doesn't stop PBS from having an opinion, in fact it is nearly always pro-government, supporting its sugar daddy.

Can you exclude it from your teli package and avoid paying? Of course not.

It is quite different from PBS, which relies on private donors. The BBC corporation is completely funded by the UK government (and the money it makes from selling its programmes), so it does not have to pander to the wishes of private donors.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I get a lot of my news from my local public radio station. Some of it comes in the hourly 5 minute news updates that precede programming. That is pretty close to pure news, but we must remember that the mere act of deciding what to report, can inject an editorial bias.

With that in mind, the first several minutes of the PBS NewsHour is pretty close to pure news. They also will have segments interviewing commentators and advocates for and against various positions on current events. That can be news in the sense of revealing who cares about what, and why.

I often use Google to search on a given topic. That process brings in a pretty wide gamut of news and opinion sometime mixed up together. I will purposely read opinionated reports to see what the issues are.

The local news on Channel 11 followed by the network news sometimes.

60 minutes is "newsy" and I see it fairly often. It's becoming more entertainment oriented over time.

I also get an actual newspaper delivered every day and spent about 45 minutes on it. SF Chronicle. It has it's own in-house conservative columnist, Deborah Saunders.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It is quite different from PBS, which relies on private donors. The BBC corporation is completely funded by the UK government (and the money it makes from selling its programmes), so it does not have to pander to the wishes of private donors.

So the BBC gets more of its funding from government, and that's supposed to make it more objective? No, it only has to pander to the government.

Originally posted by normbenign
So the BBC gets more of its funding from government, and that's supposed to make it more objective? No, it only has to pander to the government.

its a public body in its own right and is meant to be relatively objective and its funding is guaranteed by law making the assertion that it must pander to government quite ludicrous, in fact it may even be asserted that its the other way around. The best thing about it is that it cannot display advertisements.

Originally posted by normbenign
So the BBC gets more of its funding from government, and that's supposed to make it more objective? No, it only has to pander to the government.

I understand why you would think so, but this is a very high-risk operation for a politician - if one would try to influence the BBC's broadcasting and they are found out (most likely by BBC reporters reporting it) they are committing political suicide.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I understand why you would think so, but this is a very high-risk operation for a politician - if one would try to influence the BBC's broadcasting and they are found out (most likely by BBC reporters reporting it) they are committing political suicide.

Influence need not be spoken or explicit. It stands to reason that an entity is responsive to their funding source.

Originally posted by normbenign
Influence need not be spoken or explicit. It stands to reason that an entity is responsive to their funding source.

Are you of the opinion that all organizations are inevitably corrupted if their intentions are not in line with the intentions of their funders? That seems to be the basis of your position.

Originally posted by JS357
Are you of the opinion that all organizations are inevitably corrupted if their intentions are not in line with the intentions of their funders? That seems to be the basis of your position.

Not at all. However, it is naive to assume that funding doesn't have any effect on decisions of people in writing and production and management. It is possible that BBC is minimally effected by their funding source, and I don't see it enough to argue one way or the other. No news organization is purely objective, fair and balanced or whatever. Reporters, editors, producers, everyone has biases, and where the money comes from has to be considered by employees.

This doesn't make an organization corrupt, just human.

Originally posted by normbenign
Influence need not be spoken or explicit. It stands to reason that an entity is responsive to their funding source.

Funding is guaranteed by law. Politicians dare not meddle with it too much. Of course the BBC's reporting is biased because its reporters and executives are human, but they do not favour a certain viewpoint because of financial reasons (as opposed to e.g. the major cable networks in the US).

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Funding is guaranteed by law. Politicians dare not meddle with it too much. Of course the BBC's reporting is biased because its reporters and executives are human, but they do not favour a certain viewpoint because of financial reasons (as opposed to e.g. the major cable networks in the US).

"Funding is guaranteed by law."

And the legislature is in session every year and can change that law.

If anything, in the US it is the consumer who influences what goes on TV or radio. Advertisers fund the profit of media including newspapers and magazines, and poor circulation or ratings kills media, whether cable networks or paper media.