|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: How to get money out of news media without decreasing freedom of the press? (Read 1588 times)
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
 Offline
Posts: 941
|
One of the reasons why Donald Trump won the election, is related to how much media attention he got. But of course media wanted to give him attention, because that increased the amount of attention they got from people. And the more attention media get from people, the more money they make on commercials.
We could make laws to prevent such behavior from the media, but that would decrease freedom of the press. So my question is, how do we get money out of news media without decreasing freedom of the press?
I have kinda found a solution now:
4.2 Investigative journalism should get subsidized
The more attention news media gets from people, the more money they earn on commercials. And since sensational news tends to attract most attention, many news sources seek out sensational news. On the other hand, investigative journalism is expensive to perform, but does not necessarily get as much attention as sensational news. So in order to get more investigative journalism, the government should subsidize it. It is however very important that news sources do not get subsidized just because they write favorably about the government, since negative feedback is one of the essential criteria for a healthy democracy (Figure 21).
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 10:25:59 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1115
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
That, and/or criminal behaviour like corruption, should also be punished by diverting a percentage of the money to the journalists who found out and published.
(On top of whatever the courts decide is punishment. Sometimes courts can never pinpoint a single culprit, so the persons go free. But money has been transferred. So a percentage of the money transfer has to be payed by the receiver and the sender to the investigative journalists who did their job.)
Currently, there are some big things going on, but because there's no media attention, the culprits can and will go free.
FIFA was an exception, but that's because football attracts a lot of attention. And yet, despite all the evidence, most culprits remain free, and FIFA doesn't change as much as needed. Just some token rules.
There are also other international organisations, like IMF, WIPO,... where things are going wrong, but it happens outside the eyes of the masses.
In one case, I even know the media gets payed for NOT reporting, or reports only paid puff pieces painting top-management as victims...
Not in the media, despite a court having decided that human rights are being breached. In the high court it's now about whether the organisation enjoys immunity, or whether human rights are a higher good (it's not about whether human rights are being breached; no, it's about which good is higher: immunity or human rights. Both are, by contracts, inviolable. The judges now have to decide which one the host state must break to protect the other.)
reason for edit: accidental double posting instead of editing this post.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 22, 2016, 10:20:13 am by Krulle »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
What about Hillary Clinton and the things she covered up? Or that she planned to strengthen america's ties to one of the most intolerant, racist leaders in the western world, Benjamin Netanyahu?
With more investigative journalism you would learn more about Hillary also. You would get more facts in the news, and less sensational bullshit made to attract viewers. Like the last tweet of Trump.
The wikileaks weren't enough investigative?
And what about this:
In 2004, when gay marriage was a hot issue and many states were amending their constitutions to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, Clinton gave a speech on the Senate floor in defense of traditional marriage that could have been written by Jesse Helms. In other words, she didn’t just bite her tongue or give lukewarm support to one side or the other; she went “all in” in her opposition to legalizing gay marriage, because that was a winning approach in 2004. Now that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states and the LGBT community is an important Democrat voting bloc, Clinton wants to pretend that she’s always been at the vanguard on gay rights, as though her vocal opposition to gay marriage just a decade earlier somehow never happened. Indeed, Clinton has thrown out trial balloons suggesting that her opposition to gay marriage was somehow designed to defend gay rights from even more extreme elements in Congress!
Plain facts. That's your hillary.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1115
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
The wikileaks weren't enough investigative? And what about this: In 2004, when gay marriage was a hot issue and many states were amending their constitutions to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, Clinton gave a speech on the Senate floor in defense of traditional marriage that could have been written by Jesse Helms. In other words, she didn’t just bite her tongue or give lukewarm support to one side or the other; she went “all in” in her opposition to legalizing gay marriage, because that was a winning approach in 2004. Now that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states and the LGBT community is an important Democrat voting bloc, Clinton wants to pretend that she’s always been at the vanguard on gay rights, as though her vocal opposition to gay marriage just a decade earlier somehow never happened. Indeed, Clinton has thrown out trial balloons suggesting that her opposition to gay marriage was somehow designed to defend gay rights from even more extreme elements in Congress! Plain facts. That's your hillary.
Wikileaks is just publication of leaked documentation. That's not investigative.
Going through these documents, linking the facts, and drawing conclusions is journalism.
And that's politician. But from what I heard and read, Mr President-elect is much worse regarding this.
Miss Clinton seems to have changed her attitude in general, while Mr. President-elect still does so on a daily basis.
People develop, therefore their attitude towards gay marriage can change.
But it should not depend based on whom you're talking to from hour to hour.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3873
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Zanthius' point is not weakened in the least if Hillary would also have been a terrible president.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
Just don't put trust in anyone in the american elections. If you are able to vote for them, they have bought your ballot.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1115
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
Zanthius' point is not weakened in the least That is true, but I wanted to point out the danger of taking this argument as a reason to vote against Miss Clinton.
If you hold it against one, you can reasonably expect it to be held against the other too.
Also, 10 years since her statement are a long time. Her attitude may have changed honestly.
Through education, through thought, however.
If her original statement would've been yesterday, I wouldn't believe her new pro-gay stance.
But since years I heard no open negativity about gays from her. Not much encouragement either, but at least not negative.
That seems to indicate a genuine change of attitude towards gays.
While with Mr. president-elect I still do not know what he wants, where he stands.
Besides his cabinet being the top 1%, and the likeliness of political decisions flowing from that, there is not much we can reasonably expect for general guidelines.
On the other hand, it is rather likely, that people have to rethink whether electing a certain party because their parents and great-parents did is a good enough reason for oneself.
4 years are a long time, and if economy does not break down again, things may not look as bleach as some make believe.
When has "elite" or "professional" become a swear-word?
It happens everywhere, and that way we take the best solutions away from ourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3873
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
I also agree with all that.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
|
|
