"When it does people will say they are doing journalism, sure, but it will really be marketing or propaganda."
I've had this sense for some time, but it's chilling to read. Here in Canada, the CBC is still a fairly good news source, though various cuts (there are always cuts...) have certainly left marks.
Does Mir think that Americans are simply too hidebound and paranoid to demand, let alone consider, public funding for journalism? Or is it that private, unaccountable interests will inevitably collude to prevent such a debate?
Right, I find that as much as the BBC can be awful, it provides a kind of moderating ambient sanity to UK television that is lacking in the US. But as to your question, the reality is that almost no government has embarked on any new publicly-funded services in a long time. In the US we are currently in a defensive battle to save the public library system
Hey, Vincent. I have a question- when you say publicly funded journalism created through the state, what exactly do you mean? Are you talking about something like PBS or the BBC, and/or is it something that's government-independent and taxpayer-funded (however that looks)? Would this be something added to the First Amendment, perhaps, so that it's "impermeable" to some government attempts at harming or weakening such journalism?
Part two- would it be advantageous to reimagine how journalism operates in some ways, so that it is more community-oriented and "democratized," so to speak? So that journalists go to the public and asks them to share their stories and questions while we as journalists simply help people tell those stories and answer their questions? Of course, we could still do the usual muck racking we always do and keep our discretion. But, regaining public buy-in and trust is a key factor to long-term journalism sustainability, I think, and maybe this is a way to do that.
To read this in 2025 in the wake of Trump’s newly appointed cabinet and staff + self declared allies (such as Zuckerberg losing any shame and coming out as a MAGA boy), is almost like reading a time traveler’s cautionary tale.
I think the comparison of Bezos, Elon and the like to Russia’s oligarchs is a bit lacking. I am far from a fan of theirs but they built businesses on top of collective infrastructures. Oligarchs plundered existing businesses and mostly natural resources from the people. If Bezos would have taken over the internet and started charging for access it would be a better comparison. But they didn't. This is a monopoly issue not a Russian style stealing withing a corrupt system.
"When it does people will say they are doing journalism, sure, but it will really be marketing or propaganda."
I've had this sense for some time, but it's chilling to read. Here in Canada, the CBC is still a fairly good news source, though various cuts (there are always cuts...) have certainly left marks.
Does Mir think that Americans are simply too hidebound and paranoid to demand, let alone consider, public funding for journalism? Or is it that private, unaccountable interests will inevitably collude to prevent such a debate?
Right, I find that as much as the BBC can be awful, it provides a kind of moderating ambient sanity to UK television that is lacking in the US. But as to your question, the reality is that almost no government has embarked on any new publicly-funded services in a long time. In the US we are currently in a defensive battle to save the public library system
A terrifying accompaniment to the erosion of journalism and defunding of the humanities
Hey, Vincent. I have a question- when you say publicly funded journalism created through the state, what exactly do you mean? Are you talking about something like PBS or the BBC, and/or is it something that's government-independent and taxpayer-funded (however that looks)? Would this be something added to the First Amendment, perhaps, so that it's "impermeable" to some government attempts at harming or weakening such journalism?
Part two- would it be advantageous to reimagine how journalism operates in some ways, so that it is more community-oriented and "democratized," so to speak? So that journalists go to the public and asks them to share their stories and questions while we as journalists simply help people tell those stories and answer their questions? Of course, we could still do the usual muck racking we always do and keep our discretion. But, regaining public buy-in and trust is a key factor to long-term journalism sustainability, I think, and maybe this is a way to do that.
To read this in 2025 in the wake of Trump’s newly appointed cabinet and staff + self declared allies (such as Zuckerberg losing any shame and coming out as a MAGA boy), is almost like reading a time traveler’s cautionary tale.
I think the comparison of Bezos, Elon and the like to Russia’s oligarchs is a bit lacking. I am far from a fan of theirs but they built businesses on top of collective infrastructures. Oligarchs plundered existing businesses and mostly natural resources from the people. If Bezos would have taken over the internet and started charging for access it would be a better comparison. But they didn't. This is a monopoly issue not a Russian style stealing withing a corrupt system.