I do not understand how this fits into any conventional political worldview. Why should the public taxpayer dollars fund a journalism outfit that then follows its own agenda rather than the one set forth by the democratically elected government? How is this democratic?
From 1972 to 1988, anti-socialist Republicans won four elections by landslide margins (8, 10, 18, and 23 points). The coverage of NPR during that time was quite sympathetic toward socialism, and certainly didn't reflect the ideology of the electorate. (My dad, who is a soft-on-socialism Democrat, called it "Radio Moscow"). How does it make sense for taxpayers to pay government journalists who have a fundamentally different view of the world?
Imagine the opposite: Obama's America being forced to pay for journalists who approach the world from the viewpoint of Christian fundamentalism. How would that be democratic?
What we have now is a government that tries to shut down all news outlets that are not comprised of journalists who approach the world from the viewpoint of Christian nationalism fundamentalism.
How is that any better? How is that democratic and pluralistic?
Because the people want it? You are treating democracy as a kind of populist authoritarianism where unwelcome viewpoints are suppressed. Generally We the People value (or at least used to value) free and fair discussion.
>NPR
Mostly irrelevant in this discussion. The large majority of NPR's funding has always come from member stations and "listeners like you".
>Imagine the opposite: Obama's America being forced to pay for journalists who approach the world from the viewpoint of Christian fundamentalism.
What is there to imagine? Obama's America did in fact pay journalists to do just that. Public media is generally supposed to present a diversity of viewpoints, and leaving out religion would be doing the public a disservice in that regard.
> You are treating democracy as a kind of populist authoritarianism where unwelcome viewpoints are suppressed.
Let’s not play word games. It’s not “populist authoritarianism” to say that, in a democratic society, taxpayers shouldn’t have to bankroll journalists who don’t share their world views.
Shutting down journalists just because they're not ideologically aligned seems a bit antidemocratic to me.
What you're suggesting is something close to Orbanism or Putinism, where the media apparatus is completely captured by the ruling party. That is not an appealing proposition to me.
> But when it comes to voting on what will receive public funding, that's based on having a majority.
Why? That's the reasoning Orban used to purge the media and strengthen his corrupt regime.
> That's giving a single profession the power to check a government elected by the majority.
Yes, that is the purpose of the fourth estate in a democracy, just like the third branch of government, which is also supposed to be impartial in their judgements and not be swayed by electoral concerns.
> > But when it comes to voting on what will receive public funding, that's based on having a majority.
> Why?
Because the public getting to decide how to spend their own tax dollars is the bare minimum standard for calling something a democracy. Dictating that the public must spend tax dollars on things they do not support is completely unlike constitutional protections on minorities.
> Yes, that is the purpose of the fourth estate in a democracy
What country has a "fourth estate" in its constitution? And who decided that journalists are it?
> Because the public getting to decide how to spend their own tax dollars is the bare minimum standard for calling something a democracy. Dictating that the public must spend tax dollars on things they do not support is completely unlike constitutional protections on minorities
This is a strong assertion that serves more as a declaration of ideology than an argument.
> What country has a "fourth estate" in its constitution? And who decided that journalists are it?
I'm not really interested in the particular, as mentioned above. The point is universal systemic robustness, not counter-productive excursions into legalisms.
It most assuredly is. The American version of democracy has a great many protections for minorities, whether they be intellectual, religious, or ethnic. The notion that the majority should pummel the minority into submission is perhaps a version of democracy, but not one compatible with American tradition.
This is why Obama, Biden, and other politicians who support democracy had no problem funding a free and fair press while populist authoritarians have systematically sought to dismantle it.
> That's not "democracy," that's constitutionalism, which is inherently anti-majoritarian
That was a nice sleight of hand, but democracy and majoritariansm are not synonims. IMO majoritarianism is the failure mode of democracy - mob rule. We saw this happen in Hungary, where Orban used his majority to cement sixteen years of one-party dictatorship and only by a miracle got deposed this year.
Pluralism is how democratic institutions can actually be upheld and protections like free speech can be protected from the tyranny of the majority.
I'm not American, so I'm less interested in debating your (or even any Anglo!) political traditions and norms. I'm more interested in systems design and the implications of structures. It's easy to get stuck in the particular when the questions are universal, let's not fall for that.
I don't think a democratic system has to be inherently majoritarian in design and I don't believe they are synonyms - how the demos is determined and weighed is not a given based on the etymology itself.
More importantly, I'm less interested in abstract labeling than I am in designing a democratic system that is robust and can survive authoritarian impulses of a ruling class (that might be democratically elected, as it has been in all the examples I've named).
I saw the result of what you propose - ruling party control of government funded media - happen right in my backyard. Hungary was functionally a one-party dictatorship with total media control through a combination of government controlling the purse strings of public media and government-aligned oligarchs capturing the private market.
It functionally stopped being a democracy precisely because party with majority support at one point in time used said majority to completely take over control of the fourth estate.
It's also the very process the Nazis used to take Weimar Germany from democracy to dictatorship - they even had a fancy term for it, Gleichschaltung.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung
So this article is obviously very American, but I'm assuming high quality state-funded (idk about 'government' - funded) journalism isn't exactly rare around the world?
Here in Ireland RTÉ (heavily state funded) provides free, high quality, independent journalism that doesn't pull punches on reporting on failures of the state, including government. The brits have the BBC, which from what I gather works similarly.
Sample of two, but I'd wager this isn't exactly a rare model.
16 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 10.3 ms ] threadFrom 1972 to 1988, anti-socialist Republicans won four elections by landslide margins (8, 10, 18, and 23 points). The coverage of NPR during that time was quite sympathetic toward socialism, and certainly didn't reflect the ideology of the electorate. (My dad, who is a soft-on-socialism Democrat, called it "Radio Moscow"). How does it make sense for taxpayers to pay government journalists who have a fundamentally different view of the world?
Imagine the opposite: Obama's America being forced to pay for journalists who approach the world from the viewpoint of Christian fundamentalism. How would that be democratic?
How is that any better? How is that democratic and pluralistic?
Because the people want it? You are treating democracy as a kind of populist authoritarianism where unwelcome viewpoints are suppressed. Generally We the People value (or at least used to value) free and fair discussion.
>NPR
Mostly irrelevant in this discussion. The large majority of NPR's funding has always come from member stations and "listeners like you".
>Imagine the opposite: Obama's America being forced to pay for journalists who approach the world from the viewpoint of Christian fundamentalism.
What is there to imagine? Obama's America did in fact pay journalists to do just that. Public media is generally supposed to present a diversity of viewpoints, and leaving out religion would be doing the public a disservice in that regard.
Let’s not play word games. It’s not “populist authoritarianism” to say that, in a democratic society, taxpayers shouldn’t have to bankroll journalists who don’t share their world views.
Shutting down journalists just because they're not ideologically aligned seems a bit antidemocratic to me.
What you're suggesting is something close to Orbanism or Putinism, where the media apparatus is completely captured by the ruling party. That is not an appealing proposition to me.
Why? That's the reasoning Orban used to purge the media and strengthen his corrupt regime.
> That's giving a single profession the power to check a government elected by the majority.
Yes, that is the purpose of the fourth estate in a democracy, just like the third branch of government, which is also supposed to be impartial in their judgements and not be swayed by electoral concerns.
> Why?
Because the public getting to decide how to spend their own tax dollars is the bare minimum standard for calling something a democracy. Dictating that the public must spend tax dollars on things they do not support is completely unlike constitutional protections on minorities.
> Yes, that is the purpose of the fourth estate in a democracy
What country has a "fourth estate" in its constitution? And who decided that journalists are it?
This is a strong assertion that serves more as a declaration of ideology than an argument.
> What country has a "fourth estate" in its constitution? And who decided that journalists are it?
I'm not really interested in the particular, as mentioned above. The point is universal systemic robustness, not counter-productive excursions into legalisms.
I'd invite you to read my longer comment above if you'd like to learn more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49563762
This is why Obama, Biden, and other politicians who support democracy had no problem funding a free and fair press while populist authoritarians have systematically sought to dismantle it.
That was a nice sleight of hand, but democracy and majoritariansm are not synonims. IMO majoritarianism is the failure mode of democracy - mob rule. We saw this happen in Hungary, where Orban used his majority to cement sixteen years of one-party dictatorship and only by a miracle got deposed this year.
Pluralism is how democratic institutions can actually be upheld and protections like free speech can be protected from the tyranny of the majority.
I don't think a democratic system has to be inherently majoritarian in design and I don't believe they are synonyms - how the demos is determined and weighed is not a given based on the etymology itself.
More importantly, I'm less interested in abstract labeling than I am in designing a democratic system that is robust and can survive authoritarian impulses of a ruling class (that might be democratically elected, as it has been in all the examples I've named).
I saw the result of what you propose - ruling party control of government funded media - happen right in my backyard. Hungary was functionally a one-party dictatorship with total media control through a combination of government controlling the purse strings of public media and government-aligned oligarchs capturing the private market.
It functionally stopped being a democracy precisely because party with majority support at one point in time used said majority to completely take over control of the fourth estate.
It's also the very process the Nazis used to take Weimar Germany from democracy to dictatorship - they even had a fancy term for it, Gleichschaltung.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung
Here in Ireland RTÉ (heavily state funded) provides free, high quality, independent journalism that doesn't pull punches on reporting on failures of the state, including government. The brits have the BBC, which from what I gather works similarly.
Sample of two, but I'd wager this isn't exactly a rare model.