... for good reason.
Is there evidence to show that the BBC and CBC have reduced polarization in Britain and Canada? One could argue that they have plenty of their own biases and are not especially good at detecting or correcting for those.
The only reason for why there isn't a CBC equivalent in the US is 'because it happened that way'. Trying to find some generalized reason in this particular artifact of a political culture is like trying to find reason in a drunkard's walk.
They aren't on the same level as major US news networks when it comes to distortion and agenda-pushing though. This is my opinion, but there are plenty of systematic studies that show the same thing. If you look but can't find any then I'll come back with links.
Also, important to note: Rupert Murdoch is directly involved in the funding of trying to convince people that these public broadcasters are "too left leaning". For his own profitable gains, as the more people turn away from them, the more they turn to stations he owns. Something to think about.
Which has very little meaning as "true" can mean whatever you want it to mean. BBC, ABC, and CBC have much higher journalistic integrity than their private counterparts.
True journalistic path is not about the truth but about the dispensation of facts in a way that will help the reader make an informed decision pertinent to themselves and its surrounding.
Otherwise, we have "National Enquirers" infestation and all those who are yellow-journaling in their chasing of the last revenue pool.
It used to swing left wing in, like, the 1980s and it used to be independent until the Hutton enquiry.
1. They didn’t really find anything of note. 2. The whole exercise has scared many at the ABC into not doing good journalism 3. The decade of budget cuts which had a negligible effect on the bottom line but were a fantastic way to virtue signal to the party’s right-wing fan base took away from, among other things, the quality of the ABC’s journalistic output.
You’re looking at a news org that was run under a right-wing government for a decade, including them installing one of their own at the top, and telling me that there’s ‘left-ring bias’? The assertions you’re making about things “never happening” don’t reflect journalistic content I see being pumped out of the ABC ALL the time.
Huh? Next you'll be saying the Tories are left-leaning :)
It's always really odd to watch an episode of eg NOVA about climate change only to see the underwriting by the Koch foundation.
It seems like they aren't selling influence or pulling punches for their benefactors... but would I actually be able to tell if they were?
I stopped watching a show on PBS once the API (American Petroleum Institute) began sponsoring it.
You can stream and watch ondemand PBS.
FRONTLINE is great. They did a show on banking crisis.
i.e. all the newspapers just print Tory propaganda nonstop and don't report on any scandals until they suddenly notice something happened a year ago when they decide to not like the PM anymore.
If you disagree with the public broadcaster, you'll still choose a new source you agree with, along with a movement to defund the public broadcaster.
PBS? (Literally "public broadcasting service")
So if you mean “America would benefit from a government run media outlet that mostly supports one party” then i’d have to disagree.
To what extent is this an actual "issue?" What are we sacrificing for having a plethora of divergent ideas?
> Since Americans don't have a public broadcaster that they all have a stake in as taxpayers
I would really prefer not to have one, and in the era of the internet inside of a nation with a strong first amendment that these other countries do not enjoy, I'm not sure what it could possibly add.
> Americans pick and choose which news sources they listen to
Freedom of choice is wonderful, but what you are missing is that several media ownership rules were rescinded in the 1990s. There used to be _more_ choice. Strangely, that actually _reduced_ the "issue" of polarization.
> which inevitably leads people to listen to news that confirms their personal biases.
Then that probably isn't news. It's an opinion piece masquerading under a news masthead. I'm not sure how true news, that is factual information told by someone who's only interest is informing the public, creates bias.
> Americans are allergic to such things as "state run propaganda".
I contributed to NPR, right up until I felt they were veering into "state run propaganda." If they truly covered the news, I might donate again. It's a market, they should serve it, and not seek to survive as a tax driven entity answerable to a federal congress. I'm sure that would just make things worse.
There's nothing wrong with divergent ideas per se, but divergent ideas themselves don't really do anything. You and I probably have different ideas about something. And we can leave it at that and both go on with our lives, never interacting and learning about another idea than our own.
In the best case, nothing is gained by this, and that's OK and probably even describes the majority of interactions we will ever have with distinct people. But the "value" of divergent ideas is when they converge back together and generate brand new ideas their neither party would have on their own.
But, in the worst case we continue to diverge in our own ideas, only ever converging with people with the same ideas, building "echo chambers" that separate us from anything new and "in-groups" and "out-groups" that further divide us.
And this seems to be the problem with American politics, and bleeding into American society in general. Everything's a partisan issue and everything's on the extremes, so you're either a left-extremist, a right-extremist, or you're not even part of the conversation. If something isn't promoting our ideas, isn't serving us and shouldn't be supported.
So, what we seem to be sacrificing for having these divergent ideas is having any meaningful conversations that can create new ways forward. Which certainly does seem to be creating a lot of issues.
But for what it's worth, considering how our federal congress behaves these days, I'm inclinded to agree that a tax funded public broadcaster would probably not really be in our best interest.