Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by am1988 3244 days ago
Their money source is as protected from the government as it reasonably can be.

Really, the alternative is you have them beholden to billionaire owners and advertisers. This is why I like the idea of a (properly funded) public news source, just not as the only source of news.
1 comments
msla 3244 days ago
> Their money source is as protected from the government as it reasonably can be.

Obviously false.

> Really, the alternative is you have them beholden to billionaire owners and advertisers.

Or have them run as a non-profit which doesn't accept advertising and instead takes donations from a huge variety of sources, including the people who watch it.

Don't pretend there are no other funding models.

Don't pretend the fact the government has a strong hand in their funding doesn't impact what they consider to be newsworthy.

link
am1988 3244 days ago
> Obviously false.

Justify this. The funding is legislated into place in such a way that they are not subject to the whims of a new budget. Removing it would require actually changing the law, which ensures that a government trying to do so is subject to scrutiny.

That seems about as good as you can reasonably expect.

> Don't pretend there are no other funding models.

I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth.

link
msla 3240 days ago
> That seems about as good as you can reasonably expect.

... assuming you want the news to be government-funded and, therefore, government-run.

Some of us see a problem in that.

link