News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17... by munk-a on Monday November 18, 2019 @02:33PM (#21567379)
I think it's intensely incorrect and that journalism is an asset to society that definitely is deserving of public subsidies - but given the environment NYT is operating in they're either going to need to seek a profit or a patron. I think it's pretty obvious the sort of PR fallout the Washington Post has (somewhat deservedly) gotten after being taken over by Bezos.
Re:FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17... by philwelch on Monday November 18, 2019 @04:20PM (#21568252)
There’s no silver bullet in any of this. If the government subsidies journalism the government can control journalism. At least with corporate control you can have competing corporations telling alternate sides of the story. But ultimately it’s on the public to be skeptical and critical consumers of media.
Re:FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17... by munk-a on Monday November 18, 2019 @06:36PM (#21569290)
I agree that both are corruptible, but I'd rather see some heavily subsidized government friendly news sources that then receive competition from private corporations (similar to the british or canadian model with the bbc and cbc respectively) rather than rely wholly on corporate backed news sources... NPR and PBS are alright I guess, but their budgets have been slashed several times over and while there is good journalism (like the Newshour) there isn't the budget to cover stories in as in depth a manner.

I'd also like to highlight that as much as people fear government control of subsidized news sources - both PBS and NPR have been quite decently independent, with PBS in particular not having qualms about investigating the government when warranted.