Scientific American

  • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Ehhh… I’m not so sure. If it’s publicly funded, what incentive is there to investigate government corruption?

    Would Watergate still have happened if Nixon had the ability to cut the WaPo purse strings?

    • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      if that funding were guaranteed and beyond the influence of those government officials, then they wouldn’t have any fear of revenge-based budget cuts.

      this could be accomplished by putting control of the funding into the hands of multiple levels of committee oversight so that no one person or even a single committee could threaten it.

        • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          That’s why I suggested multiple levels of oversight. Also, they kept their funding.

          • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            They did, because Mr. Rogers defended it. If he hadn’t been there to step up it likely would have been cut.

            That’s the problem. You get one party in power who doesn’t like it for some reason, it’s gone.

            • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              What you’ve shown is the system -democracy - working as intended. I’m not sure how that’s a criticism.

              That’s the problem. You get one party in power who doesn’t like it for some reason, it’s gone.

              except your “evidence” proves the exact opposite.

              • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Kinda like how Reagan removed the fairness doctrine… Oh, sure, any ol’ President could have it restored… 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Obama, 2+ years of Biden… Hey, it’s only been since 1987… 36 years… I’m sure it will be back any day now…

                • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  what does that have to do with government funding of journalism?

                  • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    My argument is that anything the government grants you can also be taken away… and if the counter is “But it can be restored too…”

                    Yeah, still waiting on the Fairness Doctrine, which, yeah, also has a direct impact on journalism.

            • theodewere@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              this is why we protect the speech and the journalism… it’s like the whole vaccine argument all over again…

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          It depends entirely on how the funding arrangement is enshrined. Some mechanisms are easier to undo and some are practically impossible to undo.

          So while you could say that nothing in our world is guaranteed, it’s going too far to say we shouldn’t have publicly funded media because any old president can just snap his fingers and make it all go away. That’s not the case.

          And even if funding were easy to pull, that would mean no public media until someone else snaps their fingers and restores it.

          • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Kinda like how Reagan removed the fairness doctrine… Oh, sure, any ol’ President could have it restored… 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Obama, 2+ years of Biden… Hey, it’s only been since 1987… 36 years… I’m sure it will be back any day now…

      • Turkey_Titty_city@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        this is why universities have endowments. and why they become convulted messes.

        of course, they don’t use them like they should, but that’s another issue entirely.

        sadly people are greedy and short sighted, no matter the institution. often the committees want to reward themselves above all else.

        • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          That’s the problem with charity— free reporting becomes a privilege bestowed to a select a few by private institutions and subject to their whims rather than a right guaranteed to everyone by the government. 

    • JohnOnABuffalo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Publicly funded doesn’t mean government controlled, PBS and NPR only get about 10% of their budgets from the government. Most of it comes from Viewers like You! (Donations)