“State sponsored news” is generally seen as a bad thing(tm), so I don’t know how well that would work. There are good ones, for sure. Just that it’s not always a good thing.
> “State sponsored news” is generally seen as a bad thing(tm)
Very Debatable, capital D. Maybe in the US, but even there you have things like NPR and publicly funded libraries which are not seen as "bad things" as far as I can tell.
This is the second throwaway comment I've noticed you make in this thread, your first being to call someone privileged for deciding to limit their news intake.
I hate to be this guy, but the only "modern rich guys" I know of who have gone to space recently were Jeff Bezos, who donated ten billion dollars in 2020, the largest amount ever, towards mitigating climate change[0] and Sir Richard Branson, who donated half his money, two billion dollars in 2013[1].
But what have the Romans done for us?
It took me about 30 seconds to find these articles, and so I'm not sure what to conclude from your comment other than you were looking to score some cheap Internet points by hating the rich. Can you explain what your thought process went like, what motivations triggered your reaction here? I fundamentally would like to understand what happens to trigger this, "somebody else did something cool so we have to say bad stuff about them!" mode that so many folks seem to adopt.
It's not a cheap reaction to them "doing something cool", people this wealthy have not earned the right to be celebrated, because wealth is not a virtue. Multibillionaires actively make the world a worse place and their wealth comes at the expense of thousands below them. One individual should not have that much economic sway, they're like unelected nobility, unaccountable to anyone. They represent a staggering policy failure to build a humane society and their donations to charity, if any, are not a good substitute for what they have taken from society. Andrew Carnegie gave back substantially (76 billion, adjusted to GDP) to the society from which he derived his wealth. Billionaires these days are far less charitable.
>Based on these figures, MarketWatch reported Bezos donated just .5 percent of his net worth last year - a quarter of the 2 percent the average American donates each year.
>And why should we believe that Gates or any other billionaire’s “boldness” necessarily reflects society’s values and needs? Oligarchies aren’t the same as democracies.
NPR is funded by large managed funds, huge agribusinesses, extractive industries, family foundations started by the people who own them, and listeners like you.
>Maybe in the US, but even there you have things like NPR and publicly funded libraries which are not seen as "bad things" as far as I can tell.
NPR is universally denounced by the American right as leftist/Democratic Party propaganda. Also PBS. Fox News once went so far as to call Mister Rogers an "evil, evil man."
As far as public libraries go, I've seen many claims that their only utility is as public toilets for the homeless.
> those in the American right also make claims that Fox News is too liberal.
So if 1 person says Fox news is too left, then it's impossible to say "NPR is universally denounced by the American right as leftist/Democratic Party propaganda"
That's a bit overreaching argument that doesn't follow.
However, quite paradoxically, the same kind of people are happy with living along 'communist' streets, instead of insisting on them becoming privately owned toll roads. I guess, there's still hope.
Edit: Meaning, as long as we are social animals, information is infrastructure. And there seems to be still a place for public infrastructure that is not contested.