National Public Newspaper

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We currently have NPR for radio and PBS for television, but we lack a public newspaper. These days the newspapers are being hit hard and some of them are running on sponsorship anyway. The industry may die out and we would be left with no objective source of information in print. So my suggestion is that we institute a public newspaper. Instead of starting one from scratch though we should take a current leading paper and sponsor it so that it is delivered for free to every house in America. I suggest The Wall Street Journal.

It shouldn't cost the taxpayers more than $100 million. Please vote.

[Major Robert Dump]

We already have one.

It's called Stars and Stripes.

[a completely inoffensive name]

We currently have NPR for radio and PBS for television, but we lack a public newspaper. These days the newspapers are being hit hard and some of them are running on sponsorship anyway. The industry may die out and we would be left with no objective source of information in print. So my suggestion is that we institute a public newspaper. Instead of starting one from scratch though we should take a current leading paper and sponsor it so that it is delivered for free to every house in America. I suggest The Wall Street Journal.

It shouldn't cost the taxpayers more than $100 million. Please vote.

Wall Street Journal stinks. Nothing wrong in starting a new newspaper, so many have closed down already that there are plenty of talented journalists in the labor market.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Wall Street Journal stinks. Nothing wrong in starting a new newspaper, so many have closed down already that there are plenty of talented journalists in the labor market.

Does it objectively stink?

How would you go about creating an objective newspaper? Should we have a house committee made up of politicians with law backgrounds figure out how to do it?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Does it objectively stink?
From the criteria you have presented, yes.



How would you go about creating an objective newspaper? Should we have a house committee made up of politicians with law backgrounds figure out how to do it?
You delegate the task to people who know what they are doing. Again, there are plenty of good journalists out there looking for work. If your point is to simply fund a newspaper to provide "objective" reporting, simply make the division, put newspaper industry professionals in charge and let them run it how they want to.

Every major newspaper has bias to it, simply handing Wall Street Journal money is promoting the views of News Corp., not promoting the public interest. You just like the bias of WSJ so of course you think it would be a good idea for it to stick around...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You delegate the task to people who know what they are doing. Again, there are plenty of good journalists out there looking for work. If your point is to simply fund a newspaper to provide "objective" reporting, simply make the division, put newspaper industry professionals in charge and let them run it how they want to.


:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


Every major newspaper has bias to it, simply handing Wall Street Journal money is promoting the views of News Corp., not promoting the public interest. You just like the bias of WSJ so of course you think it would be a good idea for it to stick around...

Actually I think you make a great point. Newspapers are naturally going to have a bias. There are all kinds of biases, after all--overt political bias is only one of them. There are biases that come from ignorance, or just from having a certain worldview and education, from living in a certain bubble, from being a part of a certain intellectual culture, from having personal likes and dislikes, from being drawn to groupthink and not wanting to appear to far out there, to being pro anything that makes good news, to wanting to appear objective, to a conception of what the role of a journalist is vis a vis government secrets, and probably many more.

Maybe we shouldn't have any taxpayer funded news programs.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Actually I think you make a great point. Newspapers are naturally going to have a bias. There are all kinds of biases, after all--overt political bias is only one of them. There are biases that come from ignorance, or just from having a certain worldview and education, from living in a certain bubble, from being a part of a certain intellectual culture, from having personal likes and dislikes, from being drawn to groupthink and not wanting to appear to far out there, to being pro anything that makes good news, to wanting to appear objective, to a conception of what the role of a journalist is vis a vis government secrets, and probably many more.

Maybe we shouldn't have any taxpayer funded news programs.

Or you just have a diversity of journalists to mitigate most of the problems. I really doubt you just over looked the fact that everyone has a bias in someway, so when you made your OP asking to protect objective sources of info, I do not know what you were getting at. I feel like this is just one big joke thread meant to jab at "intellectuals".

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Or you just have a diversity of journalists to mitigate most of the problems. I really doubt you just over looked the fact that everyone has a bias in someway, so when you made your OP asking to protect objective sources of info, I do not know what you were getting at. I feel like this is just one big joke thread meant to jab at "intellectuals".

It's not a joke really. I mean, it's funny that democrats who love NPR and PBS would never in a million years support distributing the wall street journal for free. But it's not a joke.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's not a joke really. I mean, it's funny that democrats who love NPR and PBS would never in a million years support distributing the wall street journal for free. But it's not a joke.

NPR isn't really as biased as you think. And it isn't just democrats who love NPR.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576218543378702266.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

[Kralizec]

I wouldn't go a far as saying that all state funded media are bad. But the commercial TV networks here often complain that they have to compete for the viewers with our publicly funded channels. Our newspaper industry isn't doing great either, and introducing a publicly funded competitor that can't go broke but which could potentially draw customers away from the privately owned ones sounds like a bad idea.

I don't know much about WSJ except that it allegedly has a slight republican slant. Which is fine for a privately owned outlet but which would disqualify it for your idea.

[HoreTore]

You should have one network owned and completely funded by the government.

The others shiuld be subsidized, to ensure as many viewpoints as possible are made available to the public.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

NPR isn't really as biased as you think. And it isn't just democrats who love NPR.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576218543378702266.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

It's been trash every time I've turned it on.

Overt or deliberate bias is one of a dozen ways in which a media company can be consistently biased.

Even actual objectivity in no leads to competence--call this the mythology of fact-checkers.


I don't know much about [WSJ] except that it allegedly has a slight republican slant. Which is fine for a privately own outlet but which would disqualify it for your idea.

I agree. But it wouldn't have to be a republican slant. A "pro-finance" slant would be enough. Lack of quality would be enough. The journalists being human is enough.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's been trash every time I've turned it on.

Overt or deliberate bias is one of a dozen ways in which a media company can be consistently biased.

Even actual objectivity in no leads to competence--call this the mythology of fact-checkers.

What shows were you listening to? The line up is hit or miss in my opinion. The only consistent show is the BBC news hour.

I think the discourse could use more emphasis on fact checkers in my opinion. I have already stated that previously and I don't think you can even have a clash of viewpoints in a debate without some sort of baseline fact to go off of (such as, "the debt is really high").

[HoreTore]

Ah, the BBC....

The finest media house the world has ever seen. Why? Because it's a part of the british government, that's why.

The private sector will never come close.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What shows were you listening to? The line up is hit or miss in my opinion. The only consistent show is the BBC news hour.

I don't know. Unless it's hit or hit it should get it's own funding. Which it mostly does, so if people like it they can pay for it personally.

The wall street journal is a tame example of conservative. I've heard stuff on NPR that's worse than limbaugh.


I think the discourse could use more emphasis on fact checkers in my opinion. I have already stated that previously and I don't think you can even have a clash of viewpoints in a debate without some sort of baseline fact to go off of (such as, "the debt is really high").

Politics isn't about facts. It's about perspective, philosophies, values, principles, and then personal traits like competence, know how, etc.

Fact: politicians must and should misrepresent themselves. I have no beef with obama saying he didn't support gay marriage back when he ran for office. I have no beef with Biden's silly bit about how he thinks life begins at conception but doesn't want to push that on other people. Politicians have to say these things.

That's why the fact checkers don't limit themselves to facts, but go off of what it was supposed to imply, what effect it was supposed to have, etc. And that's where they often fail because that's the hard part and trying to be objective doesn't get you very far at all.

"We haven't seen Mitt Romney's tax returns for the last 10 years" is a 100% factual. It's also one of the Democrat's most contemptible talking points.

[Kralizec]

It's not a joke really. I mean, it's funny that democrats who love NPR and PBS would never in a million years support distributing the wall street journal for free. But it's not a joke.

Never listened to NPR or viewed PBS. Maybe it's biased, I have no idea. If so, the solution would be to do something about that bias rather than trying to balance it out by funding a news outlet that's biased in another direction.

Besides, it's bad form to subsidize one commercial company and not its competitors. They should all be left to rot on their own.


I agree. But it wouldn't have to be a republican slant. A "pro-finance" slant would be enough. Lack of quality would be enough. The journalists being human is enough.

...taken in the context of my previous post to which this is a reply, I have no idea what this means.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't know. Unless it's hit or hit it should get it's own funding. Which it mostly does, so if people like it they can pay for it personally.

The wall street journal is a tame example of conservative. I've heard stuff on NPR that's worse than limbaugh.

Well, if I am not mistaken, the vast majority of NPR (don't know about PBS) comes from private donations anyway.




Politics isn't about facts. It's about perspective, philosophies, values, principles, and then personal traits like competence, know how, etc.

Fact: politicians must and should misrepresent themselves. I have no beef with obama saying he didn't support gay marriage back when he ran for office. I have no beef with Biden's silly bit about how he thinks life begins at conception but doesn't want to push that on other people. Politicians have to say these things.

That's why the fact checkers don't limit themselves to facts, but go off of what it was supposed to imply, what effect it was supposed to have, etc. And that's where they often fail because that's the hard part and trying to be objective doesn't get you very far at all.

"We haven't seen Mitt Romney's tax returns for the last 10 years" is a 100% factual. It's also one of the Democrat's most contemptible talking points.

I wasn't trying to argue otherwise to this point. I am simply saying that in order to talk about philosophies, perspectives and all that good stuff, there must always be a baseline fact/facts upon which our entire realities can clash in the public sphere. There is a reason that saying "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no one is entitled to their own facts", is relevant here. Politics is about what you say it is, and not focused about facts, but without something there to bridge the connection between two viewpoints, the conversation becomes nonsense. The politicians may as well be living in different countries if there is no agreement on some sort of basic factual statement.

I am basically saying there is a bare minimum of fact checking needed, in order for politics to function. Disregarding it completely ignores the purpose it serves in allowing the better philosophy/viewpoint to win.

[Montmorency]

Politics isn't about facts. It's about perspective, philosophies, values, principles, and then personal traits like competence, know how, etc.

See? You do believe in political expediency.

More so, politics is about making real: power. Personal idiosyncracies are better eliminated or subsumed here.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, if I am not mistaken, the vast majority of NPR (don't know about PBS) comes from private donations anyway.


Yes.


I wasn't trying to argue otherwise to this point. I am simply saying that in order to talk about philosophies, perspectives and all that good stuff, there must always be a baseline fact/facts upon which our entire realities can clash in the public sphere. There is a reason that saying "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no one is entitled to their own facts", is relevant here. Politics is about what you say it is, and not focused about facts, but without something there to bridge the connection between two viewpoints, the conversation becomes nonsense. The politicians may as well be living in different countries if there is no agreement on some sort of basic factual statement.

I am basically saying there is a bare minimum of fact checking needed, in order for politics to function. Disregarding it completely ignores the purpose it serves in allowing the better philosophy/viewpoint to win.

Facts aren't the baseline. Facts are something indisputable and proven. The baseline is usually a moral question.

But let's say a politician says something that's wrong. Is it significant? That's no longer a factual question. How significant? Not a factual question. It may be obvious (or seem obvious) but it's not factual. When is it worse for a candidate to say nothing about a topic than for him to say something factually inaccurate?

The fact-checkers are just the media's silly conception of itself repackaged.

[Hooahguy]

As said, we have government sponsored radio and TV, why not a newspaper? The only problem comes when its the only option.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Facts aren't the baseline. Facts are something indisputable and proven. The baseline is usually a moral question.

But let's say a politician says something that's wrong. Is it significant? That's no longer a factual question. How significant? Not a factual question. It may be obvious (or seem obvious) but it's not factual. When is it worse for a candidate to say nothing about a topic than for him to say something factually inaccurate?

The fact-checkers are just the media's silly conception of itself repackaged.

Moral questions arise only out of statements of fact though. Making a moral judgement requires a set situation which can be restructured as a fact. If the moral question is about the right way to tax the rich vs the middle class vs the poor, it inherently comes about due to people trying to make sense of the fact that the current tax rates are X,Y and Z respectively.

How can you separate the state of reality from judgement about it?

[Montmorency]

Moral questions arise only out of statements of fact though.

Yet to do so is surely a logical fallacy.

[Hooahguy]

Moral questions arise only out of statements of fact though. Making a moral judgement requires a set situation which can be restructured as a fact. If the moral question is about the right way to tax the rich vs the middle class vs the poor, it inherently comes about due to people trying to make sense of the fact that the current tax rates are X,Y and Z respectively.

How can you separate the state of reality from judgement about it?
Random question, but why does ICantSpellDawg give thanks on all your posts? Looking over some past posts its pretty much every single one. Plus he doesnt even seem to be online currently. Last time online was at 7:22 AM.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Moral questions arise only out of statements of fact though. Making a moral judgement requires a set situation which can be restructured as a fact. If the moral question is about the right way to tax the rich vs the middle class vs the poor, it inherently comes about due to people trying to make sense of the fact that the current tax rates are X,Y and Z respectively.

How can you separate the state of reality from judgement about it?

How does the moral question arise from people trying to make senses of the current tax rates?

[Montmorency]

How does the moral question arise from people trying to make senses of the current tax rates?

It's a question of value.

[rvg]

National Newspaper will need to be outsourced to China. They'll be impartial in their reporting of our news since they won't give a crap either way. Liberal America owes China as much money as conservative America does.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Random question, but why does ICantSpellDawg give thanks on all your posts? Looking over some past posts its pretty much every single one. Plus he doesnt even seem to be online currently. Last time online was at 7:22 AM.

Oh, that is just a joke. It is part of my sig. If you see posts of mine that have actually been thanked, the real thanks will be on the bottom.

I did it because ICSD and I, rarely if ever agree on something.

[Kralizec]

And it was my idea. You still owe me money.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And it was my idea. You still owe me money.

I pay you in thanks. That's how it works right? How much did we agree upon again?

[Hooahguy]

Oh, that is just a joke. It is part of my sig. If you see posts of mine that have actually been thanked, the real thanks will be on the bottom.

I did it because ICSD and I, rarely if ever agree on something.

Oooohhhh....

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ah, the BBC....

The finest media house the world has ever seen. Why? Because it's a part of the british government, that's why.

The private sector will never come close.

True. And, if the national public newspaper were to become respected by the public as an institution, it may help to reduce the sort of political polarisation you see in America because people won't rely so much on the typical left/right-wing partisan news sources.

[Kralizec]

I pay you in thanks. That's how it works right? How much did we agree upon again?

There was no set amount. You agreed to thank me in return for every time you posted yourself, because in doing so you use my intellectual property

Since you probably post more than I do I'm not sure how that would work out. Maybe you can pay others with money to give me thanks in addition to your own.

[Strike For The South]

I would have no problem making the WSJ as a publicly funded entity. It's generally well sourced and is a solid publication. The slight lean doesn't bother me as the information contained inside the lean outweighs the bias, not a terribly big deal.

Publicly funded news provides a service, espacilly PBS. Shows like Wishbone, Bill Nye, and Reading Rainbow generally get kids enthused about learning.

I also feel there is something to be said for covering things that might not always be cost effective. Private corps have to make money (and I'm certainly not faulting them)

[Hooahguy]

I also feel there is something to be said for covering things that might not always be cost effective. Private corps have to make money (and I'm certainly not faulting them)

Which explains why the History Channel doesnt really have any history shows anymore- they need the money to stay afloat so they follow the consumers- more reality based tv shows.

[Fragony]

There are no non-governement funded papers here, if it isn't by direct support it's by advertising. Go ahead, but I won't be reading any of of it.

[Kralizec]

There are no non-governement funded papers here, if it isn't by direct support it's by advertising. Go ahead, but I won't be reading any of of it.

This is new to me, please tell more.

If it's just about some advertisements the government bought here and there, much like any company or individual can do, I won't be impressed.

EDIT: there was that case with Wolfsen (a mayor) who intimidated a local newspaper I suppose.