U.S. News

2244 readers

3 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.

Guidelines for submissions:

Post the original source of information as the link.
If there is any Nazi imagery in the linked story, mark your post NSFW.
If there is a paywall, provide an archive link in the body.
Post using the original headline; edits for clarity (as in providing crucial info a clickbait hed omits) are fine.
Social media is not a news source.

For World News, see the News community.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

alyaza

rs5th

Powderhorn

Public Funding of Journalism Is the Only Way (www.hamiltonnolan.com)

submitted 9 months ago by alyaza to c/usnews

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] alyaza 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Misinformation does not discredit democracy, it discredits the state apparatus that either allows- or conducts- the misinformation.

we don't agree on this for a variety of reasons, so i just reject the premise here and what follows from it.

So then I would again ask, who do you think should determine what kind of journalism is ‘needed’?

i'm pretty content to trust journalism as a collective institution to produce the sort of necessary journalism for a healthy civic society—it's been doing just that for a long time even in the absence of the readership to financially support it. (things like ProPublica would not exist if journalism was incapable of doing this from within)

[–] t3rmit3 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

so i just reject the premise here and what follows from it

...okay? I'm happy to discuss this within the parameters of a different political paradigm if you prefer, I just normally discuss things within the paradigms they currently operate under.

ProPublica would not exist if journalism was incapable of doing this from within

ProPublica exists precisely because of the public directly deciding which media organizations should receive funding; they're a donor-funded non-profit. They would not exist if the public did not agree- and vote with their wallets, as it were- to fund them. Journalism as a collective institution does not sustain itself.

journalism as a collective institution to produce the sort of necessary journalism for a healthy civic society

So just to be clear, are you advocating for news media to not be publicly-funded, or are you advocating that all news be publicly-funded?

Because if it's anything else, someone is making the call as to who receives funding and who doesn't, and journalism as a collective institution is not actually a decision-making body.

[–] alyaza 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

ProPublica exists precisely because of the public directly deciding which media organizations should receive funding; they’re a donor-funded non-profit.

ProPublica exists in large part off of grant money, large philanthropic donors who believe in its journalism and very generous backing from the Sandler Foundation (which i believe gives it on the order of $10m a year). it does not really exist because of the kindness of individual small donors that you're using as shorthand for the "public", and if (as you suggested up thread) the public at-large was asked to fund ProPublica at the scale it currently operates, it would almost assuredly be non-viable.

So just to be clear, are you advocating for news media to not be publicly-funded, or are you advocating that all news be publicly-funded?

i think it's perfectly fine for all news to be publicly funded, yeah

[–] t3rmit3 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

i think it’s perfectly fine for all news to be publicly funded, yeah

So anyone could create a news organization, and publish anything they want, and receive public money for it? That seems like it would massively increase the amount of misinformation being thrown at voters, making them even less informed?

Personally, I don't like governments, so in my ideal world there would not be "public" funding in the way we define that now, it would be up to communities how to allocate their resources (and how to make those decisions), and which industries are important. But obviously I understand that situation is purely aspirational. In our current system, I prefer direct democracy over leaving decisions to a political class that is bought and paid for.

[–] alyaza 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So anyone could create a news organization, and publish anything they want, and receive public money for it? That seems like it would massively increase the amount of misinformation being thrown at voters, making them even less informed?

this seems like an unfounded logical leap from the premise of government involvement, when the far more likely answer is this would become less likely due to the ability to directly regulate news media. you could probably make the public funding contingent on meeting certain editorial or transparency criteria to curb what you're describing, for example--this is, to a degree, the model of the Dutch public broadcasting system.

[–] t3rmit3 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I don't think it's government involvement that causes that, I think it's the absence of some kind of mechanism to discriminate between news entities. The only question then, when avoiding that, is whether it's ultimately the government doing the choosing, or the public.