For you, it is. I did not except ANY country's news services, nor did I say that ABC or SBS were "state news agencies."
Look at what I, actually did say. I responded to him to say "I don't know what you mean by assured government funding and strong/independent...." That's a request for more clarification as to what he means. Not what YOU mean, Hermit, what he means. I added "if the government pays...then it's not independent..." And, it's not. Obviously, it's at least financially dependent. That isn't to say that it's a mouthpiece for the State, of course. This is not an either/or proposition.
The next bit is very important - I noted that "However, a public broadcasting channel that receives some government funding.....is not an issue." That's what ABC is - public sector media, which is funded directly or indirectly by the state, but over which the state does not have tight editorial control.
I then go on to say that "a state news agency, risks becoming pravda." ABC is not a "state news agency," is it? It's public sector media - like PBS or NPR in the United States. It gets government funding but does not have tight editorial control from the state. It is not "independent" of the state, of course, but it's not Pravda.
You have to look at the entirety of the conversation up to that point, too - look:
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773761
Brian Peacock wrote "When a media outlet is obliged to reflect the views of it's owners what more can we expect from the journalists it employs?"
Pervin wrote: "Yeah, the neoliberal capitalist ethic is sort of self-reinforcing. Media companies make cuts in the aim of "efficiency" and profits, and you end up with a shit organisation that doesn't adequately challenge neoliberalism and "trickle-down" etc, which in turn leads to more cuts... rinse repeat." - You'll note that Australia does have a capitalist system for the bulk of its media.
I wrote: "Assuming that's true, what alternative do you suggest?"
Pervin wrote: "Well, assured government funding for a strong and independent (as much as possible) media organisation, and then not allowing the private media scape to concentrate enough such that diversity of opinion is stifled."
To which I then responded: "I agree with the media concentration. A good utilization of anti-trust laws to prevent excessive mergers would be helpful. I find an informal "too big to fail" test to be helpful here. If a business enterprise is too big to fail, then it should be broken up, or if it will become too big to fail after a merger, then it should not be allowed to merge. No enterprise should be able to say to the government "bail me out, or I'm taking the economy/industry with me..." that includes media outlets." So, I start out by agreeing with him on a problem with the current system - excessive concentration.
I also wrote "I don't know what you mean by assured government funding and strong/independent media organization. If the government pays for the news, then it's not "independent" of the government. However, a public broadcasting channel that receives some government funding, in the nature of funding of the arts and sciences, is certainly not an issue.
A State news agency, though, risks becoming Pravda. That doesn't help anyone."
So, there I simply say that I don't know what he meant there - his was a one-line, very general statement. I pointed out that if "independence" is one of the things involved, then if the government pays for it, it's not in "independent." That seems quite self-evident, to me. I mean, there can be a separation of editorial control, but financial dependence, and you still don't have an "independent" media outlet. And, then I said "however" (on the other hand_, a public broadcasting channel that receives some government funding is not an issue. That's identifying two points on the issue of "independence" --- funding on the one hand means you can't have complete "independence" but you can have government funding and still not be "an issue" (a problem - i.e. government funding is not always a problem). I would think you'd see there an invitation for pervin to expand on his meaning of it (which he later did), with some explanation of by me of what I was indicating I did not understand from his statement.
The last line apparently set you off that "A state news agency risks becoming Pravda" -- that's separated, and at the end -- "state news agency" "risks becoming" (not is -- risks) Pravda.
Nowhere in any of that exchange (until you responded) was anyone talking about Australia or the ABC or the SBC. Nowhere. People can talk about concepts of media (public, private, and/or state media) without always including exceptions where Australia's systems don't fall into one or the other category - why would I include Australia's ABC but not Canada's CBC? I didn't provide an exception explicitly for CBC. Or, the UK's BBC. I didn't mention Dutch Public Broadcasting, either.
Pervin then said "Well Australia's ABC and SBS, and the BBC's in the UK aren't Pravdas. That's why I said "assured". Meaning, it can't be cut just because it's publishing news the government doesn't like." That's the first mention of Oz. Pervin was using Oz and UK as examples of government funded media that aren't Pravdas. He explained his meaning - funding can't be cut just because they're publishing news the government doesn't like.
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773816
JimC then chimed in with "Which is exactly what the coalition government is doing to the ABC right now... Quite the opposite to a Pravda-like media outlet..." That's interesting, because he seems to be suggesting that the Coalition gov't in Oz is doing what pErvin said they can't do, cutting funding because they're publishing news the government doesn't like -- JimC posted "Which is exactly that the coalition government is doing to the ABC right now...."
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773822 Are they doing what Jim C says they're doing? Is that a problem? What could too much monkeying around with funding like that mean in the extreme?
Pervin then responds to JimC - "Yep. They continually try and decimate it, because it's too left wing for them. The reality is, it's only really centre-left at most. And that's only because the centre has marched to the right so much in the last 40 years. And as they say, reality has a left wing bias." So, they (the coalition government) "continually try and decimate it, because it's not reporting the news the way the coalition government would like. So, there you have pervin agreeing that the State is mucking about with funding to try to influence the news because the right wing folks don't like the apparent (in the coalition government's view) "too left wing" stance.
JimC and pervin both are saying there that the government is cutting funding - trying to decimate the public media -- because the government doesn't like what the government thinks is a left wing slant. Right?
Hermit - that's not me saying that - that's Pervin and JimC. I have, to that point, said less than "fuck all" about Australia, the ABC or the SBC. Pervin and JimC did. And they accused the Australian government of cutting their funding because they don't like it. Are they wrong? If so, why don't you respond to them? If not, if they are right, then my statement that public broadcasting that receives some government funding is "not an issue" is actually partially incorrect -- Pervin and JimC have, actually, identified "an" issue with public broadcasting. The government can, when controlled by a party/coalition that does not like what they see as a slant in the public news, try to cut the funding to keep that alleged slant from being published..... right?
Then your post here comes next --
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773836 "Government funding of the ABC and SBS no more makes them play their tune than government funding of polling booths brings the voters to heel. Our governments have no say in who runs either, nor how they run it. They are not blackmailed when funds are cut, nor are they bribed when the funds are restored. Conservative and liberal governments alike regularly complain that some ABC or SBS (TV as well as radio and web presence) reportage is being unfair or biased against them. As far as I am concerned that means our government funded media are doing it right. You can stick the attempted association of them with Pravda up your arse. Sideways. Then rotate. Vigorously."
You took the opposite view from Pervin and JimC -- they said government funding in Oz is being cut because the Coalition government doesn't like what they see as left wing bias. You say, however, that government funding "no more makes them play their tune than government funding of polling booths brings voters to heel." You say the Coalition Government has "no say in who runs either, nor how they run it." I never said they did. JimC and Pervin said, however, the coalition government tries to cut funding because they don't like the alleged left wing leaning.
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773836
Now for me, I had already said that "public broadcasting that receives some government funding is.... not an issue." My identification of a risk applied to "state news agency" -- which ABC is not. Am I not right about that? Or, is ABC a "state news agency?" Do you, or do you not, think ABC is a "state news agency?" Please answer that question.
I never did what you accused me of, which is to "associate ABC with Pravda." Never. Not once. I never even said that the government mucks with funding when they don't like it.
Pervin replied to you here:
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773837 He wrote "Yep. Although, I think the government decides the chairman (who then picks the board?)." So, even though he said the government tries to defund and "decimate" the ABC, because the government thinks it's too liberal, he does agree with you that government funding doesn't make them play by government rules and that it's like the government paying for voting booths, etc. But, he does inquire as to whether the the government decides who the chairman is, who then picks the board.
I still haven't posted anything at all about Oz at that point.
Then, Hermit, you come back with this:
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773847 -- You explain, quite nicely, how the board picks a chairman, and how there is a short list drawn by an independent panel, etc. You explain it's rather more complicated than the short summary you provided, but the upshot was "the ABC is extremely unlikely to turn into a mouthpiece of the government or any one particular interest group." And, I never said it was likely to do so. I never said it wasn't extremely unlikely to become a mouthpiece.
You then say - "So, it gives me great pleasure to once again present 0.42 with a heartfelt
for attempting to associate the one with the other. Fucking yanks..." Only, I never tried to associate the ABC with Pravda. ABC is not a state news agency. The only thing I said "risks becoming Pravda" is a "state news agency" (which, I think you will likely agree, the ABC is not - don't you agree with that? ABC is not a "state news agency" right?). And, I have, to that point, not mentioned Oz or ABC or SBS.
L'Emmerdeur then chimed in with this:
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773917 showing the US public broadcasting chief complaining about proposed Trump budget cuts. Again, the only thing that I said about public broadcasting to that point was that some government funding of public broadcasting was "not an issue." I fail to see what I've said that's so bad there. I don't think funding to public broadcasting needs to be cut - I never said it did.
Pervin then wrote "Hang on, but I thought government funded media was pro government. Like Pravda was."
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773923 I had, however, said the exact opposite - that some government funding of public broadcasting was "not an issue." What I said "risked becoming" Pravda was a "state news agency." So, if Pervin really did think that I had said that "government funded media was pro government like Pravda was" then I clearly never said that. Pervin himself, however, had said the government tries to "decimate" the media when the government perceives it to be too left wing.
I then responded here -
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773924 "I said nothing about Australia's broadcasting companies. I was discussing the general concepts. Do you consider ABC to be "a State news agency?" If not, then the Pravda comment doesn't enter into it. That was one end of the spectrum, not an accusation against Australia." -- I still have not gotten an answer to that question. Is ABC "a state news agency?" I pointed out, accurately, that I was talking about general concepts.
Pervin then said -
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773927 "You said " If the government pays for the news, then it's not "independent" of the government.", and then went on to talk about Pravda." I did say that if the government pays for the news then it's not independent of the government. And it isn't. Obviously, it's financially dependent, and Pervin even said earlier that the government tries to decimate -- interesting word choice - decimate the ABC because the government doesn't like what the government thinks is a left wing bias. And, then I "...went on to talk about Pravda..." but he leaves out that I said it was a "state news agency risks becoming pravda," and I had explicitly pointed out that some government funding of public broadcasting (which is EXACTLY what they have in Oz) is not an issue."
Brian Peacock then mentioned that it's a matter of legislation to protect the public media from government interference --
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1773957 And, I responded by agreeing with him, but suggesting that it's not simple or easy, and there are issues where the government will squawk if they don't like what's published or think it's too biased to the other political viewpoints. That's not much different than Pervin and JimC talking about the government trying to defund or decimate the ABC becasue they don't like the political slant they say they see.
I ended with: "
Public sector media is state funded media, where the State does not exercise editorial control. There is a place for that, IMO. But I think the place for it is in addition to a vigorous free market of ideas, and not instead of a free market.
As usual, the British commonwealth (and former british colony) part of the world is way better on press freedom than the rest of the world, Asia, most of Africa, and South America. Countries like Oz, NZ, UK, US, most of western Europe, are solidly good when it comes to press freedom. Much of eastern Europe and the Balkans have press freedom problems. The BRIC countries and Muslim countries are not particularly good on press freedom."
Inexplicably, you responded with this:
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1773999 Accusing me of issuing a summary condemnation of government funded media. However, you snipped out one line from my post. The next sentence in that very same post where you declare that I have summarily condemned government funded media I literally wrote that "government funding of public broadasting is not an issue." Not an issue. Government funding of public broadcasting is not an issue.
So, it was, plainly, not a "summary condemnation" of government funded media, but a nuanced discussion of the concepts from wholly private on the one end, to "state news agencies" on the other.
From then on, it's just dogs with bones, trying to accuse me of saying something I never said.
