[dotandgtfo]

Your lighthouse parable is still highly relevant for public broadcasters when you consider that modern public broadcasting heavily subsidize expensive original reporting that for-profit newspapers are free to and happy to republish.

A core reason for having a robust public broadcasting system is that it lifts the quality of the entire information ecosystem.

Saying this as a Norwegian. I happily pay around 200/300 dollars a year for it out of my taxes.

[mike_hearn]

Yes, people who enjoy state TV like making other people pay for their enjoyment. That's immoral. Certainly, you cannot argue it's moral because you personally believe it's high quality. Lots of people in any country feel the exact opposite: that state TV damages the entire information ecosystem and is outright malign. Under what consistent moral code should they be forced to pay for it?

[dotandgtfo]

I don't enjoy making others pay for my entertainment. What a petty way to frame the discussion.

You'll find broad/majority support for state broadcasters in Northern Europe. The business model of for-profit digital news production is not economically viable outside of certain niches or clickbait/ragebait. Doubly so in small countries with just a few million citizens.

Free, broadly available, non-commercial journalism is a critical part of our society. Some would say paywalling a baseline of local knowledge constricts civic participation and is immoral. But that's a lame value judgement and should rightfully be dismissed.

[mike_hearn]

I already showed that the UK - definitely a country in Northern Europe - doesn't have a majority that finds its state broadcaster trustworthy. We can assume those people who don't find it trustworthy don't support it, or if they do, do so only out of inertia and wouldn't care if it went away either.

> The business model of for-profit digital news production is not economically viable outside of certain niches or clickbait/ragebait

State media is much more than just news, so are you agreeing at least that all of the non-news production should be defunded?

But, of course it's viable to do for-profit news. There are plenty of successful private news companies out there that aren't niche. You are welcome to define all news you dislike as ragebait but that's clearly not an argument, it's just a "lame value judgement".

> Free, broadly available, non-commercial journalism is a critical part of our society

It's not free and it's not non-commercial. People are paid to produce it via ordinary commercial contracts, and then people are forced to buy it. Nor is it a critical part of society. Society did just fine before state media was a thing. Meanwhile the injustice upon innocent people remains, and the existence of it harms society itself greatly via other paths as well.

[dotandgtfo]

> You are welcome to define all news you dislike as ragebait but that's clearly not an argument, it's just a "lame value judgement".

> Meanwhile the injustice upon innocent people remains, and the existence of it harms society itself greatly via other paths as well.

Your hyperbole is exasperating. I'll pass.

[mike_hearn]

It's not more hyperbolic than many other claims about morality in politics.