The importance for a country to have "public service" media

[jumbo747jet]

In several democracies around the world, the citizens of these countries have access to Public Service media for their news.

There are companies like the BBC in the U.K., ABC in Australia, DR in Denmark, SVT in Sweden, YLE in Finland and so on and so on.
Having Public Service media ensures that the news reporting is unbias, objective and reflect both sides of a conflict or the political spectrum.

With the elections in the US just hours away, I can't help but think that the general public would really benefit from having news from a reliable source, especially with all the so called news channels and web sites being full of propaganda and made up disinformation.

In order for citizens to be able to make a well informed decision on how to vote, they need access to news media which lives up to it's name and doesn't side with one candidate or party over another. News which is factual and not propaganda for one side.

For all of us who have been fortunate enough to live and grow up in a democracy with human and civil rights, it can become something we take for granted, but democracy needs protecting, or we will no longer have it. It's happened before and it will probably happen again, if we are not on our toes, protecting our rights, that our rights to political influence, our civil and human rights, get taken away from us through democratic elections.

In a democracy everybody has the right to vote, but in return it is up to us to ensure that when we cast our votes, we do so well informed and educated.

 

[MickeyLee]

Ground News is pretty nifty for folks in more "media is massive manipulation and more monies" nations.

They post everything with an added dose of clarity and integrity. Listing the leanings and bias of the source on all articles. Not perfect but we are so far out from perfect these days I'll take a pen light in the darkness.

 

[ronin001]

Great point.

Sadly soo many of the print , cable and TV news programs are in the pocket of their parent organization

On the flip side many Dictator lead countries, have Government sponsored news outlets. Any private reporting of news or events not parallel with the government ideas / policy can be illegal.

I try to tell people, try not to believe / gather your news from Twitter or Facebook

 

[halcyondays]

Media has always been biased. This boomer grew up in an era when print media were already losing out to radio and tv news but every city had left- and right-leaning newspapers. Others claimed to be independent. Then cable news came along then the internet then worst of all social media. Attention span shortened. The media circus of sound bites became sound bits. Video included.

When "propaganda" became a dirty word after two world wars the name changed to "public relations" or "media relations" but the goal of affecting the way people think and act remained the same.

Media has always been used to indoctrinate and divide. The danger is demagoguery. Alarm bells go off in my mind when name-calling begins especially labelling something or someone (or entire groups) as evil which can easily spark violence.

Demagoguery works because our species is instinctually tribal. It's all too easy to use media to manipulate our tribal nature and fool us--but not all the people all the time, thank you Mr. Lincoln.

 

[cocktaste]

The US has PBS. The British public will never agree that the BBC is unbiased. Sorry, but there simply is no such thing when you have state-run media. It’s like RT and Al Jazeera. Everything is commentary now. With the advent of social media and YouTube, no one is watching network television anymore. It’s all TikTok, X, and other social media garbage.

 

[FrankieGuile]

Even when operating in a relatively free market for information, state-controlled media puts a nation on the path to curtail free expression gradually but surely, until the only expression allowed is that endorsed by the state. State-controlled media also creates a powerful disincentive for fresh perspectives and new methods to deliver those perspectives. It is an example of an elitist tyranny of the majority that some taxpayers would be coerced to support content to which they object, do not want, or do not think is worth the cost. A government should only provide an environment whereby competition for information, disseminated by private individuals, can flourish, which would ensure that many diverse perspectives are widely available for private consumption.