• GenEcon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Thats why most capitalist nations do have a public broadcast additionally to freedom of the press.

    • NuraShiny [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is it better then nothing? Yes. Is it free, fair and unbiased? Hahaha fuck no.

      As someone from a country that has this (Germany): It’s not unbiased, because it’s financed by the state and dependent upon the parties in power for it’s continued existence. In Germany that means being beholden to a bunch of neolib and conservative parties. And obviously these libs and conservatives only know how eat hot chip, lie and privatize everything, meaning state media receives a pittance of money and politicians still complain about that being too much.

    • conorab@lemmy.conorab.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, but said public broadcasters are incentivised to paint the current government in a favourable light in order to keep funding.

      • Triton@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        That really depends on how exactly the public broadcasting is funded. In Germany for example, this happens independently from other state expenses so there’s no way that the government can directly controll the press. For this reason, the press tends to be critical of all political parties, including the ones currently in government.