[embedding-shape]

That's a radical idea! Unfortunately, it gives a lot of ammo to the "anti-socialist" people who are vehemently against anything "public" funded by tax payers. Look at what's happening in the Nordics for example, where pretty much everyone supported public radio/TV at least when I was growing up, but nowadays a bunch of political parties are trying to have it removed/reduced.

[iso1631]

There's also issues when the watched are funding the watches. If the council funds the newspaper, then the newspaper reports badly on the council, then the council can reducing funding for the newspaper.

You need it to be independent, so how can you fund it. Perhaps a separate precept on the council tax bill which is set separately (say by national government)

The BBC funding model attempts to do this at a national level, but of course nowadays that's not sustainable - part of the failure of the old civic minded establishment in favour of the new edgy profit minded establishment

[carlosjobim]

Nordic public broadcasting is some of the lowest quality news media you can find. They're not a good example, unless the job of public service media is to only support one or two political parties at all cost (you know which ones).

Edit: Just an example. The funniest thing they've been doing regularly for decades now is when they go out on the streets with a camera to ask random strangers - the common man - about what they think about some recent development, like "What do you think about Trump?".

But the "random stranger" common man on the street is actually a politician from the journalist's own party who has dressed up and showed up on a pre-agreed place and time.

[embedding-shape]

> Nordic public broadcasting is some of the lowest quality news media you can find.

Compared to what? Have you seen what qualifies as "news" in other parts of the world?

> media is to only support one or two political parties at all cost

I've seen news on Swedish public media that disparages all sides of the political spectrum, exactly what I expect from public media not taking sides.

> But the "random stranger" common man on the street is actually a politician from the journalist's own party who has dressed up and showed up on a pre-agreed place and time.

Cherry-picking in journalism has absolutely nothing to do with public media or not, and I'm not sure why you're bringing it up here.

[carlosjobim]

> Compared to what? Have you seen what qualifies as "news" in other parts of the world?

Even compared to non-government funded media in their own countries, just to start with. Or public broadcasters in other countries, such as the BBC or PBS.

As for Swedish public media not taking sides, that is like saying Fox News doesn't take sides and isn't aligned with the Republican party. If you can convince yourself to believe that Swedish public media isn't politically aligned, then congratulations.

> Cherry-picking in journalism has absolutely nothing to do with public media or not, and I'm not sure why you're bringing it up here.

How do you not understand? When interviewing the "common man" out on the streets, you should do that, and not interview somebody who is a high level party functionary without telling people you are doing that.

That's like Fox News interviewing "random strangers" on the streets, but it turns out to be JD Vance in a wig.

[embedding-shape]

> As for Swedish public media not taking sides

That's not what I said, I said that I've seen Swedish public media "disparages all sides of the political spectrum", which is way more realistic than "not taking sides". We all wish we can be perfectly impartial, but that's short of impossible, so the next best thing is that it pushes back no matter where it comes from. That's what I've seen, but I no longer live in Sweden, maybe this last decade it's been different than how it was when I lived up there.

[bjourne]

Keep lying.