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.
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?
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?
> journalists who approach the world from the viewpoint of Christian nationalism fundamentalism
There is no such thing. Only 3-4% of journalists are Republican, and a bunch of those probably didn't even vote for Trump: https://www.theamericanjournalist.org/post/american-journali.... Even explicitly Christian news sources like Christianity Today and National Catholic Reporter have moved to the left as immigration has become the defining issue of politics around the western world.
I’m not sure why a journalist would comment on their personal beliefs to anyone, but that study shows Democrat journalists as a minority too.
> About half of all journalists (51.7 percent) said they were Independents, which is about 12 percentage points above the figure for all U.S. adults (40 percent). Overall, U.S. journalists today are much more likely to identify themselves as Independents rather than Democrats or Republicans—a pattern similar to 2013.
There is a tradition of journalists being registered independents. But do you think their world view is liberal or conservative? According to consistent Harvard Harris polling, 55% of Americans agree all illegal immigrants should be deported, not just ones who commit additional crimes. Do you think those independent journalists agree with democrats on that or with republicans?
I’d say their personal views don’t really matter, because professional journalism isn’t about agreeing with a political party or about personal opinions.
I think a journalist’s personal political beliefs are as important to their job as a car mechanic’s: very little.
It’s akin to complaining that your family doctor voted for Nixon, like that has anything to do with their medical qualifications.
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.
> You are treating democracy as a kind of populist authoritarianism where unwelcome viewpoints are suppressed.
Let’s not play word games. It’s not “populist authoritarianism” to say that, in a democratic society, taxpayers shouldn’t have to bankroll journalists who don’t share their world views.
The American version of democracy has a great many protections for minorities, whether they be intellectual, religious, or ethnic. The notion that the majority should pummel the minority into submission is perhaps a version of democracy, but not one compatible with American tradition.
This is why Obama, Biden, and other politicians who support democracy had no problem funding a free and fair press while populist authoritarians have sought to dismantle it.
That's not "democracy," that's constitutionalism, which is inherently anti-majoritarian. But constitutionalism means protection for minority viewpoints, not an obligation for taxpayers to publicly fund media they disagree with.
Shutting down journalists just because they're not ideologically aligned seems a bit antidemocratic to me - it's important for the fourth estate to be an independent watchdog over other institutions.
What you're suggesting is something close to Orbanism or Putinism, where the media apparatus is completely captured by the ruling party. That is not an appealing proposition to me.
A democracy generally will have a plurality of views. But when it comes to voting on what will receive public funding, that's based on having a majority.
> it's important for the fourth estate to be an independent watchdog over other institutions.
That's not democratic. That's giving a single profession the power to check a government elected by the majority.
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.
The government is run by politicians, so I don’t see that being a possibility anymore.
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?
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?
> journalists who approach the world from the viewpoint of Christian nationalism fundamentalism
There is no such thing. Only 3-4% of journalists are Republican, and a bunch of those probably didn't even vote for Trump: https://www.theamericanjournalist.org/post/american-journali.... Even explicitly Christian news sources like Christianity Today and National Catholic Reporter have moved to the left as immigration has become the defining issue of politics around the western world.
I’m not sure why a journalist would comment on their personal beliefs to anyone, but that study shows Democrat journalists as a minority too.
> About half of all journalists (51.7 percent) said they were Independents, which is about 12 percentage points above the figure for all U.S. adults (40 percent). Overall, U.S. journalists today are much more likely to identify themselves as Independents rather than Democrats or Republicans—a pattern similar to 2013.
There is a tradition of journalists being registered independents. But do you think their world view is liberal or conservative? According to consistent Harvard Harris polling, 55% of Americans agree all illegal immigrants should be deported, not just ones who commit additional crimes. Do you think those independent journalists agree with democrats on that or with republicans?
From the latest month of that poll
Overall: 56% Republicans: 77% Independents: 53% Democrats: 37%
Which only polls registered voters not all Americans. So that 55% number isn't exactly as representative as one might believe.
https://cis.org/Arthur/Latest-HarvardHarris-Poll-Shows-Incre...
I’d say their personal views don’t really matter, because professional journalism isn’t about agreeing with a political party or about personal opinions.
I think a journalist’s personal political beliefs are as important to their job as a car mechanic’s: very little.
It’s akin to complaining that your family doctor voted for Nixon, like that has anything to do with their medical qualifications.
>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.
> You are treating democracy as a kind of populist authoritarianism where unwelcome viewpoints are suppressed.
Let’s not play word games. It’s not “populist authoritarianism” to say that, in a democratic society, taxpayers shouldn’t have to bankroll journalists who don’t share their world views.
The American version of democracy has a great many protections for minorities, whether they be intellectual, religious, or ethnic. The notion that the majority should pummel the minority into submission is perhaps a version of democracy, but not one compatible with American tradition.
This is why Obama, Biden, and other politicians who support democracy had no problem funding a free and fair press while populist authoritarians have sought to dismantle it.
That's not "democracy," that's constitutionalism, which is inherently anti-majoritarian. But constitutionalism means protection for minority viewpoints, not an obligation for taxpayers to publicly fund media they disagree with.
Part of democracy is plurality of views.
Shutting down journalists just because they're not ideologically aligned seems a bit antidemocratic to me - it's important for the fourth estate to be an independent watchdog over other institutions.
What you're suggesting is something close to Orbanism or Putinism, where the media apparatus is completely captured by the ruling party. That is not an appealing proposition to me.
> Part of democracy is plurality of views.
A democracy generally will have a plurality of views. But when it comes to voting on what will receive public funding, that's based on having a majority.
> it's important for the fourth estate to be an independent watchdog over other institutions.
That's not democratic. That's giving a single profession the power to check a government elected by the majority.