Bernie Sanders Thinks We May Want to Tax Silicon Valley to Save Journalism (vice.com) 189
Bernie Sanders may not love how the media covers him, but he wants to save it anyway. His plan involves blocking future media mergers and a possible tax on Silicon Valley to support newsrooms. From a report: The proposal, rolled out in the Columbia Journalism Review on Monday, comes as Sanders and the Washington press corps are at each other's throats. Campaign aides have lambasted reporters for what they see as selective coverage of polling data and unfair treatment of policy proposals like Medicare for All. Political journalists also cried foul after the senator suggested earlier this month that Jeff Bezos' ownership of The Washington Post influenced its coverage of his campaign. On Monday, the Democratic hopeful echoed long-standing left-wing complaints of a rapidly consolidating industry, separating "real journalism" from "the gossip, punditry, and clickbait that dominates today's news." He warned of the hollowing-out of local outlets and laid blame for the perverse pressures now reshaping media at the feet of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and President Donald Trump. "One reason we do not have enough real journalism in America right now is because many outlets are being gutted by the same forces of greed that are pillaging our economy," Sanders wrote.
Tips hat (Score:4, Insightful)
Calling out the bullshit again Mr. Sanders. Keep going.
Re: Tips hat (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no Saving Journalism
Re: (Score:2)
There is a pathway to saving it. It means crating a secure form of funding, where true information either being politically convenient or not can be covered and reported and accessible.
Being that Journalism is being funded by the Government, or by a Company, and its success is based on how many people view the content, it means there is effort around making the News interesting. Depending on the influence a problem is either ignored and not reported, or exaggerated to make people in a near panic. Then you
Re: (Score:2)
"Then you have "News" sources are actually entertainment via its terms of use Company furnishes the Company Sites and the Company Services for your personal enjoyment and entertainment." [foxnews.com] as an excuse to give misinformation, as it is more entertaining."
Whether in terms of use or not this is all the major media stations going back to at least the last democratic primary. I hadn't actually looked at the major media news in quite some time before that so I can't say when it changed. In the past a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> a secure form of funding.
Journalists that promote conspiracy theories, fake news, and lies without facts or verification can do so with out repercussion. Before, I would avoid them and hope others would too in the hopes that their decline in funding would encourage change. As it seems to have started to work. But you want to isolate them to be a special class of citizens that avoid responsibility.
How long was the Russian Conspiracy propped up by mainstream media outlets?
How many journalists promoted th
Ok, I'm calling this out (Score:2)
Donald Trump was found to have obstructed justice throughout the entire investigation. Also, if you actually read the report you'd find that the only reason Trump's campaign didn't collude is that they literally couldn't figure out how.
How many journalists promoted the racist kid smirk for the Covington kids?
Lots, and they should have. There was a lot wrong there and that Indian guy that defused the situation is a hero. A
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You must listen to the corporate approved curated messages because if you don't you might come to a different conclusion.
You must listen to the approved propaganda because wrong think is bad.
Scary.
Re: (Score:3)
I was watching an old talk show where the guest was allowed to talk for like 2 minutes straight, straight from the hip with no interruptions or bullshit.
Compare with today where they cut off the guest every 5 seconds to throw in a cheap joke or change the subject back to "mainstream acceptable" opinions. When you realize what's happened by this contrast, it's really hard to watch the current stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, what is there to save? Opinion pieces and outright fiction dressed up as presentation of fact? No thanks.
We used to need centralized news outlets, so that people could tell the world at large what happened to them. The "journalists" would distort it, often beyond recognition, but it was better than nothing. We no longer need that distorted glass to see the world.
And it's nothing new that new outlets are usually dominated furthering by a political agenda (whether controlled by the gover
Re: (Score:3)
Sure there is, you just have to fire the entire current crop and fucking start over. They're all idiots.
Sure there is (Score:4, Informative)
And let's not forget the BBC still does good reporting.
There's plenty of good working out there, but you have to look for it. You don't even have to look all that hard.
Re: Tips hat (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. "Journalism" began to die when ...
Journalism never "began to die" because there was never any "Golden Age" of journalism to begin with. Journalism has always been biased and sensationalist.
Hearst was able to use his yellow journalism empire to push America into war. It was just a fluke that WaPo uncovered Watergate, a story much less likely to be missed today. Monicagate was first published by tabloids, not the mainstream media.
If anything the Golden Age of journalism is today, when at least the biases are out in the open.
but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps, but at least back then even small cities had several, locally-owned daily newspapers with competing biases. Now most papers, TV and radio are owned by a handful of vertically-integrated media conglomerates. CNN may be willing to call out Trump, but they won't dare say anything against corporate owner AT&T. WaPo may be hard on Bernie, but badmouthing Bezos is off-limits. [huffingtonpost.ca] Ditto for Fox and Murdock, NBC and Comcast, or ABC and Disney.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's an idea. They could get back to reporting the facts instead of trying to use "news" to engineer social opinion, and see how that goes over.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's an idea. They could get back to reporting the facts instead of trying to use "news" to engineer social opinion, and see how that goes over.
They are not trying to engineer social opinion. They are trying to make money. The biased reporting is done because that is what the public wants.
Look at Fox News: They effortlessly pivoted from establishment conservatism to Trumpian populism as soon as they realized they could get more viewers.
Re: (Score:2)
That's nonsense. Journalism was already damaged in the Hearst days but there is no comparison between the seventies and now. In the seventies at least many journalists believed in their jobs. Now journalism have been reduced to high volume news factories which even the journalists no longer believe in. Mainstream journalism is as good as dead. That's why they support the fake news narrative so much, because they feel the competition of dissident media.
Re: (Score:2)
In the seventies at least many journalists believed in their jobs.
Perhaps. But that didn't make their product any better. Back in the 70s, there were 3 news networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC. Every night they would report the same stories with the same slant. Newspapers were filled with the same stories copied from AP. The three weekly news magazines (Time, Newsweek, and USN&WR) often had the same cover story on all three.
Watergate is often used as a poster child for why journalism was "great" back in the good ole' days, but the real story there is how close it was to
Re: (Score:2)
You're right that as a poster child Watergate has its problems but the journalism was better. Journalists believed in their job because it was a hybrid of business and ideology. Compromised but it delivered value. At the time Seymour Hersh was a star reporter . Now his reporting is still excellent but he can't get published anymore in the US. Chomsky would get the occasional mainstream exposure. Now he's considered so far out that he has to be ignored. Serious journalists are now treated as conspiracy theo
Re: Tips hat (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, let's have the government fund journalism. That totally won't create a conflict of interest.
Seriously, how retarded can you get? That effectively means that politicians get to decide what is fair journalism and what isn't. In other words, whatever they agree with. That means President Sanders, or President Trump, or Congress, gets to de-fund the Washington Post because they feel it is unfair to their campaign. Otherwise The Daily Stormer gets access to these funds just as much as the Washington Post does.
Re: Tips hat (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, how retarded can you get?
It is actually a smart move.
No, not government funded journalism. That is completely idiotic. I mean it is smart for Bernie to talk about socialist journalism, and raise it as an issue. That is ingenious.
The latest polls show the Democratic primary is dwindling to 10, with the rest of the field fading below 2%, under the cutoff for the next debate.
So it is now the top 3 (Biden, Sanders, and Warren) and the 7 dwarfs. Biden has the moderate vote locked up. Sanders is slightly ahead of Warren, but he is slipping while she is gaining. As the dwarfs fade away, their votes are going to Liz, not Bernie.
So he needs to get more visibility. He needs the press to talk about him. And there is nothing that journalists like to do more than report about journalism itself. They love that sort of navel-gazing self-reflection. It makes them feel important and validated, and hey, they are going to get free government money too. So Bernie is in the headlines, while his opponents struggle for a gasp of oxygen.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Biden has the moderate vote locked up." "Sanders is slightly ahead of Warren, but he is slipping while she is gaining." "As the dwarfs fade away, their votes are going to Liz, not Bernie."
The problem with this assessment is that as far as I can tell you just made it up entirely. Biden has slipped dramatically with the gains going to Sanders and Warren and those gains have come from the moderates. The dwarves dropping or near to dropping have already endorsed/said they would endorse Sanders.
Ultimately, I th
Re: (Score:2)
How do you think the entire judicial branch is funded?
According to your logic nothing funded by the government can be trusted. It's all suspect and we should leave everything to corporations.
Idiot.
Goverment funds many things that work (Score:2)
Many ways to decide how to hand out the $. Could be based on $ of people donating for example. The government used to pay for free newspaper delivery long ago and subsidized the press with a lot of $.
So, we are not to do anything because we government screw up later in the future?? That is extremely foolish; lets not have a highway system because of some bridges that fell down due to neglect!
We are collapsing today in part because the press has failed to defend the democracy; a faux press leads to major p
Re:Tips hat (Score:5, Insightful)
Eh? Everyone knows the media is a mess.
The real news is that Bernie is proposing yet another tax and yet another government agency to pick & choose winners in the marketplace.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Can government funded news agencies work? Well, there's examples around the world, like the BBC. Some are biased. Others are downright propaganda. I'd say that the trick is mixture of regulation
Re: (Score:2)
"Can government funded news agencies work?"
If the government had absolutely zero control of the money and it were run entirely as a non-profit effort then sure. But the government would never fund anything without retaining some kind of strings so no.
Re: (Score:3)
That is how his brain works it seems, it just fills in the blanks for who to tax.
Another day... (Score:2, Informative)
Another day...another tax...another subsidy...another bailout. He obviously knows how to "Bern" taxpayer money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously? When our President does that, the TDS inflicted start screaming.
And taxing SV to fund newsrooms? Who gets to decide which newsroom gets funded? The problem with socialism is that it is nothing more than handing economic power over to the people who weren't fiscally intelligent enough to earn it themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Politicians wield way too much power, such that control of media is the only way to protect yourself, and your solution is to increase the power of politicians so they can better control the messages against them?
Re: (Score:2)
Already happened. Everybody has a microphone and a high-definition video camera in their pocket right now and they're connected to the greatest publishing resource humans have ever known. Everyone is a journalist now. That's why the MSM is having fever-tantrums and swinging even harder left to keep the few remaining dolts who need them captive.
Socialists like Bernie require centralized control of information to maintain their narrative. Any critical thought or debate easily dismantles their entire thesis
Hmmm (Score:3)
Re:Hmmm (Score:4)
Bernie is a loon, a love able loon. But still as mad as a hatter on crack. It would almost be worth the entertainment value to watch Bernie square off with Trump in the debates. As happy as Eris has been with Trump in the Whitehouse, I believe she would be orgasmic if Bernie was to actually win.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Bernie is a loon, a love able loon. But still as mad as a hatter on crack
Bullshit. If you are prepared to open your mind, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The way Americans eat up the sensational image of people they are served is disheartening.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4)
I've seen parts of that. Doesn't change anything, Bernie is still mad as a hatter. Of the big three, Biden, Warren, and Bernie I will prefer Bernie over the other two. Biden has so much baggage that not even his running mate from 2008, Obama, will support him. Warren is just a liar for her own personal gain. Of the three Bernie is the only one that really stands a chance against Trump in 2020.
To bad the Democratic nomination will probably go to one of these three when there are actually better candidates farther down in the stack. Andrew Young and Tulsi Gabbard come to mind. But both suffer from the curse of being relativity unknown when compared to the big three, groopy, liar, and loon.
c'est ce que c'est
Re: (Score:3)
Most other developed countries do not guarantee the right to free speech nor the right to defend yourself. Hardly developed. Hardly worth emulating.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah they do. You can defend yourself without a gun you know.
No they don't, and no you can't. At least not properly. My ideal of a proper defense is to be able to dispatch a threat to my person and family from a safe distance that will not require me to risk myself, or a member of my family, sustaining life changing or treating injuries. By safe distance I mean out of reach of the threat by at least a room, or a distance where I am out of reach of bodily harm. To do this I need a fire arm. Of course it can be done with a crossbow or a regular bow but I prefer
Re: (Score:3)
Andrew Yang supports nuclear power and wants to dump dump money into research for thorium-based molten salt reactors. I'm not sure about his thorium plans but he is the only democratic candidate that supports climate change that will work, one that includes nuclear power.
He's got some points (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, as a non-news person who has gotten old enough to care at least about the big things, it sure looks to me like journalism has become a problem/under attack. The US was based on freedom of the press... as people are lost in the world of junk news, it sure would be nice to keep the legit news companies even more legit. Not sure how he's proposing to do it, but it'll probably be some wild idea that might just work.
Re: He's got some points (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep yep. The US was based on freedom of the press, so we need to provide special funding to only "approved" organisations so that they'll be more free than the rest. Makes perfect sense to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Even worse: Guess what happens to the funding when a new president takes office?
This will only make the problem ten times worse...
Re: (Score:2)
The legit news companies are the ones you agree with, of course.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I had a conversation with a group of older relatives and their friends when Bernie was running in the '16 primary. They were all rolling their eyes about the naivete of anyone who believed that Bernie would be able to do all these things he was promoting in his campaign. I told them I was a Bernie supporter in the primary, and it wasn't because I thought he could wave a magic wand and make college and medical care free on the day of his inauguration. It was because he has ideals, and ideas based upon them.
Re: (Score:2)
Good idea. We just need to remove that pesky first Amendment thing. Those stupid founding fathers! What were they thinking? You should need a license from the government to report news.
Re:He's got some points (Score:4, Insightful)
No no. you see we just need to get enough judges to interpret "Congress shall make no law" to mean "some restrictions apply".
Re: (Score:3)
But I don't think the founding fathers meant "free speech" to mean deliberately making stuff up, spreading disinformation or outright falsehoods. Deceiving the public. The press has a function to inform people.
It is a difficult line to draw if it should be drawn at all.
I'm not sure there is anything wrong with a license system for Real(tm) Journalism(tm). Not any more than for licensed
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't freedom of the press kinda involve letting the press publish what they want? Doesn't have to be true of factual or anything.
All we really need to do is actually teach people how to think for themselves again and then this isn't really a problem anymore. Granted, to see what is going on with a news story you need to read at least 5 or 6 different versions of that story and then try to pull an average and that does suck. But letting the government choose who is right is both a horrible idea and unc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How about don't prop up anyone and let people decide if it is valuable to consume and support?
Re: (Score:2)
How about you learn to think for yourself and not depend on a stranger to tell you what to believe? Requiring licenses to vote makes more sense, maybe with a property ownership requirement?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He's got some points (Score:4)
> How about a license system?
Do you EVEN understand the 1st or 10th amendments???
> Kind of like a drivers license, you report on fake news or have to many retractions you loose points
And where does sarcasm or parody fall in? The Onion has been trolling people for decades. Do they need a "[Fake]" tag?
HOW do you determine just how truthy something is???
Re:He's got some points (Score:4, Insightful)
> So the press can say whatever they want, when ever they want?
Freedom doesn't imply you are free of consequences. Gee, if only we had Defamation and Libel laws [nolo.com] -- oh wait, we do! /s
> They can request and get access to classified documents because congress shall make no laws abridging their freedom, right?
You DO understand that the Freedom of Information Act [foia.gov] is sensitive to security levels and can be heavily redacted, right? FOIA is NOT a guarantee. It is a REQUEST, which means sometimes the answer is NO. Gee, if only there was a FAQ [foia.gov] for this.
> Whom exactly is the "press" anyway?
Gee, if only we had people who studied Law and notated legal usage of definitions. Nah, that will never catch on. /s
> Now anybody with a computer and printer can "publish" a paper.
Bingo.
>> HOW do you determine just how truthy something is???
> Isn't that exactly the problem?
Yes, and requiring a license will do fuck all to change that. THAT's the point.
> We can license doctors, teachers, engineers, drivers
Association fallacy never makes for a good argument.
If you _actually_ studied the history of Law you would discover that driving, which was originally a Right to Travel [ssrn.com], freely, on public roads got hijacked [agenda31.org] to become a (commercial) privilege around the turn of the 20th century as cars became more popular. It was done for safety reasons, to limit liability, and because the Federal government has the right to regulate inter-state commerce.
> when the suggestion that we monitor the press, its suddenly a violation of the 1st amendment
*Monitoring* is different from *Allowing*. Stop with the bait-and-switch tactics.
We have freedom of the press because ANY other choice is censorship. And that is a FAR WORSE position to be in. It is the lesser of the two evils.
Subsidize a dying industry! (Score:5, Insightful)
If it moves, tax it. If it doesn't move, subsidize it. That is the tactic of many politicians.
It's hard to think that Bernie is naive enough to think that bias will go away just by shoring up "real" news rooms. Journalism has always had its own biases. The reason newspapers and such are in such dire straights is that not enough people support the biases of the press.
THE PRESS WAS SUBSIDIZED! (Score:3)
The USA subsidized the free press up until Lincoln and the civil war. If I remember correctly it was about 3% of the GDP.
The press always has a bias... and that is not even including frauds like Faux News or RT. The biases during the civil war as well as just honest reporting was too much to handle, manage, or control at the time so many foolish laws were made; some which harm the nation to this day.
The press has become worse over time; I won't dispute that but the bigger problem is that people WANT to liv
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
> people WANT to live in a bubble of their own
You demonstrate you want to live in your own bubble. But I am sure that your reality and your news sources are so much more informative to your opinion. Democracy now? Do you also listen to CNN? Sheesh.
>"news" from Facebook, gossip,
Word of mouth is bad because people don't like your objective reality bubble.
Yeah, we subsidize dying industries (Score:3)
He's right about Bezos and the Post (Score:2, Insightful)
It is his personal blog now. And with a paywall! Not too ironic...
But a tax? Bernie, you're nuts. Just stick to the basics and give everybody their Medicare card.
The ultimate solution (Score:5, Insightful)
There isn't any problem that can't be solved by another tax.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Fukin autocorrect. Yeah -> tax
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't any problem that can't be solved by another tax.
Talk about bias, I just love how parent is marked as "Troll".
Tax This for That (Score:5, Insightful)
What's with all the proposals for a specific tax to fund some specific initiative?
If you want to raise taxes, raise taxes.
If you want to spend government revenues on a project, present your case why that project is more important than all the other things that need to be funded.
Proposals like "I'll fine^H^H^H^H tax Silicon Valley to pay for journalism" are absurd.
Re:Tax This for That (Score:4, Insightful)
Bureaucrats like to tell the masses that they will tax "other people" to pay for something. I mean, those Silicon Valley people are rich right? Lets just tax them to pay for X and Y. It won't affect the rest of us, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Tax media to pay for other media. Tax medicine to pay for medicine.
These are political stupidities. Taxes for vital things like medicine, or speech, should not be done at all. If things in those arenas need tax money, tax something else, anything else. But not the vital thing itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if Sanders managed to wipe out the total net worth of the top 15 american billionaires to get $903 Billion, you could only run the united states for 2.85 months (assuming $3.8 trillion budget). The US has a spending problem, taxing more people isn't going to help this.
Re: Tax This for That (Score:2)
If you don't have a specified reason for raising taxes, it's pretty much impossible to get enough support to pass legislation. You got marked as a t "tax and spend" politician who just wants to kill business and take everyone's money.
More government funding... (Score:2)
So: the government takes money from X, devours a lot of it in sheer bureaucracy, and gives what's left to Y. Exactly how those decisions get made? Well, let's look at any government organization that hands money to corporations. Defense, for example, or many NASA - it doesn't matter: you get this lovely revolving door, incest between the government and the corporations. Corporate cronyism, or outright corruption is the result.
The government has no business picking winners. There might be a case for creating
"Save Journalism"? (Score:4, Insightful)
If by by "saving journalism" he means subsidizing CBS, NBC, the New York Times, etc, then to hell with THAT. The only way government should "help" journalism is to stay the hell out of its way and not suppress writers and broadcasters. And oh, look, we already do that. There's nothing wrong with journalism. It isn't in any danger. News companies are in danger, but that's not because the government is coming to lock them up. They're in danger because the public is tired of the business model they offer, and they're going elsewhere for their information. Well, that's tough. Adapt or die.
There are viable arguments for taxing Silicon Valley more. Propping up media outlets Senator Sanders prefers with tax dollars isn't one of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Journalism shouldn't rely on a fucking business model. It is a fundamental service for society and it will not function properly if profits are its driver, which is exactly what we are seeing today.
More taxes you say? (Score:2)
m
"Real Journalism"! (Score:3, Insightful)
Funded by tax-dollars that bureaucrats then get to hand out to their "approved" journalists. Sounds wonderful. Orwell is laughing his ass off.
Re:"Real Journalism"! (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately it's been going on for over 50 years. Democrats set up Public Television and Public Radio to be their mouthpieces back in the 1960's.
The structure of it ensures that they will never lose control. Only *existing* board members can hire editors or board replacements; no outside influence allowed.
The funding is obfuscated so people don't realize how much tax money is going toward funding the Democrats' message. Public dollars go to "local stations", who then kick back that money to pay for programming - along with most of the fund-raiser money; that way the parent organizations can claim they are funded by "contributors like you".
I hate to tell you this (Score:3, Insightful)
Reagan quote (Score:3, Insightful)
-Ronald Reagan
Unbelievable (Score:2)
Maybe good intentions, but (Score:2)
Bezos, Murdoch and Sinclair should be paying into this tax fund before third parties.
Maybe create a law that you can only own one newspaper or television or radio station.
I haven't bought a newspaper in probably 20 years, since the surviving local was bought, and turned into 2 pages of 1 dau to 1 week old news. 15 pages of ads, 2 pages of comics and 2 pages of editorials and rants in response to previous editorials.
"Years and Years" had it right (Score:2)
... we only have ourselves to blame.
We could choose to pay for news directly, but generally don't.
The town crier (Score:3)
At some point, the Town Crier shouted for the last time in various places all over the world, and a print shop opened down the block.
Perhaps 30 years ago, there was an editorial somewhere in print predicting that electronics would devastate print, retail, and other businesses.
Perhaps even Bernie himself read it, folded the paper hastily with his ink-stained fingers and dismissed it as apocalyptic rambling.
That's life.
Regulation not subsidies (Score:2)
So first, some of the things the TFA says are definitely true. Local media is all getting sucked up by big media conglomerates. This would include newspapers, television and radio stations. It's gotten to the point that if there's a local station that is actually local, it's a point of pride they'll announce during station id, at least on radios.
It's also true that many local media outlets are being forced into pushing the viewpoints and editorial pieces from their corporate overlords. John Oliver did a
Taxes are the socialist answer to everything (Score:2)
Socialists don't know how to solve problems without taxing them. Why wouldn't you just put in place a structure for content? Force Google AMP to be opt-in. Let Google negotiate with news organizations for their content.
This idea is just an ongoing industry bail out.
Scum Bag Bernie (Score:2)
Make a group he hates subsidize a group he likes.
This is what socialism looks like folks. Government stepping in and deciding winners should be for you.
America is lost, we are just sitting here in the death throws. Many young and ignorant idiots that are disenfranchised by the older idiots the ruined the economy for them are now ready to try Socialism despite history showing that is kills more, oppresses more, lies more, and destroys more than Capitalism.
There is little wonder that this generation has lit
It's largely a problem of their own making (Score:4, Informative)
Anyone reading/watching the "real" news today gets a heavily distorted view of the world, and most of us know it. If the media worked harder at being objective and just reported the news, then people would consider them to be superior sources of information, different from bloggers, podcasters, and stories you get from social media. But because they're obviously not objective, people tend to lump them all into the same category and give media stories about as much credence as the silly things they see on social media.
If we're going to subsidize the media, then IMHO it should come with strings attached to insure objective reporting. Metrics like how many deaths they report by each cause compared to the actual death rate by those causes.
Unfair coverage of M4A, you fraude? (Score:2)
Bullshit. If anything it's unfair coverage slanted in your favor. Ask most Democrats about medicare for all and they will say it will just let everyone get access to medicare. Nope. It will end private insurance. Some of them want it to end entirely, some want to allow "supplementals" but the fact is I would lose my very nice employer provided insurance and get the same insurance as the guy down the street panhandling or the 30 year old basement dweller playing video games all day in his parents' basement.
Academia should embrace journalism: a proposal (Score:2)
There's a big question about where those funds should go and how to avoid the trappings of state-controlled journalism (though NPR and PBS seem to be doing a good job, they are perceived as having biases, much of their funds come directly from fundraising, and we don't know if they'd scale well).
One way to solve this would be to fund journalism schools at nonprofit universities. This has a lot of extra benefits: PhD students would get good experience and exposure if their schools' papers were the vanguard
If it is tax supported... (Score:2)
is it really independent journalism anymore?
Sounds like Bernie wants to turn all US Media companies into the US equivalent of the BBS or PBS
bernie is the tax king (Score:2)
Sounds good to me (Score:2)
I'll wait for the detailed version of this plan that President Warren and VP Harris will come out with.
Why save journalism? (Score:2)
Why would anybody, but journalists want to save journalism?
The sooner this second oddest occupation die, the better.
It is just like taxing car owner to save horse-carriage drivers.
Or tax physicans to save witches.
Re: (Score:2)
Works for the BBC (Score:3)
FYI; NPR and PBS are publically funded (Score:2)
Bernie isn't dead set on all his ideas; medicare for all being his baby, he still compromised and voted for the ACA while not giving up. Bernie is not an idiot stuck on a metaphor like "build a wall", he will do what achieves the end goal. If something goes towards that goal, he WILL take it and he will change to a better plan if you come up with one... As proven with the ACA, which he didn't approve but decided it was a path towards his end goal. He is NOT a fanatic as the ignorant paint him, he has a
Re: (Score:3)
It's not about ratings and profits! You can't stop stupid if that is the majority; they will resist like hell for their right to be stupid.
You have multiple methods to contend with and nothing is going to be perfect. It doesn't have to be; if people are idiots then we'll continue towards idiocracy no matter what you do... even if you get rid of all safety labels.
You can however go back to using public resources fairly-- radio: the broadcasters do not own the airwaves the people do. They used to be require
Re: (Score:2)
We already HAVE public, non-profit media. NPR and PBS do pretty well, but they don't have the mass appeal that all the trash-journalism provides. People LIKE the trash-journalism, and funding some 2nd set of public, non-profit media isn't going to solve the problem.
NPR and PBS are perpetually seeking grant money and donations. It would not hurt my feelings if the Internet Giants were taxed a couple of dollars to help support them. I also wouldn't mind if the government granted Wikipedia a couple of dollars. I'm sure Google, etc. equally benefit from content provided by the aforementioned organizations.
Re: (Score:2)
NPR and PBS are more biased than corporate news. They should receive NO subsidies.
Re:Google profits, Newspapers suffer (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that at some point someone will begin to demand that the Government only subsidises the "correct" new outlets, and not those whose agendas conflicts with theirs.
How is that any worse than now? (Score:2)
I'd like to say there's a risk involved, but we're way, way, _way_ past that point. At a certain point you just can't make anything worse. This is end of life care for our Democracy.
there are no communists (Score:2)
We need communists just so people like you can see what a real communist is instead of ignorantly labeling everybody outside your myopic world view.
Beyond this we need to kill the outright Orwellian left/right paradigm which grossly oversimplifies the political landscape. It's not even a landscape because that is a 2D plane (or even 3D) it's a 1D LINE of left vs right and you are not even in Flatland.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]