Comment by jerf | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jerf | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"the right wing papers will use this to once again call him a socialist while still pocketing their subsidy."

Why on earth would right-wing papers get a subsidy? Or, more accurately, why would papers that disagree with whomever controls the pursestrings at the moment get a subsidy? You don't even have to cut off a paper the payer doesn't like, just reduce their payout.

And why wouldn't Obama support it? Why wouldn't any President support it? Taking possession of the fourth branch of government is supposed to not be at all tempting to him? Are you still laboring under the delusion that he's something other than a politician or something? But, hey, even if you still think that's true, Bush III (hopefully only figuratively, but hey, who knows, Jeb's name keeps getting tossed about) or President Palin is only two or six years away from the Presidency, you know. You think they're going to resist this?

That's why this is so dangerous; he who pays the piper calls the tunes, and the tune calling need not be anything so crass as "Play X again"... it can be subtle nodding and gently manipulated suggestions from plants in the crowd. There is absolutely, positively no such thing as a free press sponsored by public funds directed by the government. Yes, I include all current press sponsored by public funds as well.

(Edit: If it makes you feel better, pretend I didn't say that Obama isn't more than a politician. I'm sorry I'm too cynical to believe in the myth; just pat me on the head and move on.)

> There is absolutely, positively no such thing as a free press sponsored by public funds directed by the government.

Care to cite any references? What about the BBC and (Australian) ABC? Both have been huge thorns in the side of their respective governments over the years. In the case of the ABC, they definitely lean towards a liberal editorial view and this was maintained throughout 12 years of the previous conservative government's rule.

In Germany, we have had public radio and tv stations for decades, funded by a tax-like mechanism for people owing tv and radio recievers. Since they are public instituions, political influence is obvious.

Contrary to jerf's assertions, however, it seems to work both ways: It provides news that is often carefully balanced and 'factual' and there are also formats that pursue a political agenda and publish inconvinient stuff.

That's a false dichotomy; it's not a question of whether specific public broadcasters have or have not been a "thorn in the side" of the governments that sponsor them. And even that is a subjective assessment, since we don't know what hasn't been reported as a result of political influence, or whether intra-governmental conflicts haven't been affected by some factions having more influence over the press than others.

I don't think jerf was making an empirical claim - a "free press" dependent upon political financing and governance is a contradiction in terms.

If you actually dig into the de facto structure of the government, rather than the de jure, I bet you'd find that the conservatives never actually controlled the purse strings. Remember, there's more to controlling the purse strings that first-order apparent raw voting power. What would it have cost the conservatives to shut off the money flow? If the liberals made it more than the benefits, then regardless of the de jure structure of governmental power, the conservatives never had de facto power to cut the funding off.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. If you think you've found a place where there's an exception, you haven't correctly identified the payer.

"why wouldn't Obama support it?"

Because America is still a democracy and he would be voted out in the next elections and the guy who promises to end the subsidy would be voted in if the people do not want the newspapers to be subsidies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com