I also don't understand the claim that sponsoring all of the press must necessarily follow from sponsoring part of it. It is perfectly possible for part of the press to be sponsored by political parties, part of it to be sponsored by labour unions, part of it to be sponsored by Big Money and part of it to be sponsored by the state.
That's actually how it used to work in Scandinavia, until right-wing ideologues set out to undermine our independent public radio. I don't usually hear claims that Scandinavia is a communist dictatorship - well, I sometimes do, but only when I'm stupid enough to follow a link over to FreeRepublic...
(And as an aside, the Danish press is all subsidised to some extent through various regulations that benefit organised publishers over - say - boy scout pamphlets.)
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Sponsoring part of the press amounts to creating an official organ of press. Been there, done that.
Sponsoring part of it also won't stop capitalist rats from making even more capitalist papers, better quality, larger audience, slogans well instilled inside. So in order to be faithful to the purpose, you need to owe all the press; then you get to forbidding any other press but the official one.
I was speaking about sponsoring/subsidizing by the state though. Granted, what you say about Scandinavia sounds quite differently and I find fewer reasons of mistrust. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
I don't see why public press should necessarily be lower quality than the commercial press. In fact, it is often the other way around - the public press does not have to worry about the bottom line, so they can let their reporters actually do some expensive investigative reporting, instead of copying what they're fed by spin-doctors.
But of course, that requires that the state-owned press is insulated from political pressures. Much the same way universities have to be, and for much the same reasons.
You should come live in Scandinavia for a while. See socialism with a human face :-P
Heck, apart from the fact that it's cold and dark half of the year, you might even like it here...
State universities are not always quite so insulated from either state bureaucracy or political influence. There is a point to those americans saying that whatever the state touches, becomes inefficient, a perk and a political territory. The bad side of democracy. Their extremist solution is no better though.
My opening diary was about my latest two week trip to Scandinavia actually. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
State universities are not always quite so insulated from either state bureaucracy or political influence.
Tell me about it... our universities have been brought to the ragged edge of dysfunction by a right-wing imbecile of a minister who insists on micro-managing everything.
There is a point to those americans saying that whatever the state touches, becomes inefficient, a perk and a political territory.
And this isn't true for the things corporations do?
It is of course true inasmuch as "inefficient" is taken to mean "catering to other purposes than blindly maximising profit." Which is the usual wingnut definition. As to whether public institutions are in general less efficient at fulfilling their roles in society... well, no, as public railways and utilities can attest.
Corporations do other kind of bad things, they don't do bureaucracy. Their goal is always the market and the profit, which is normal, their reason of existence, and which must be well regulated to avoid abuse (like insurance corporations refusing to reimburse people on pretexts).
OTOH state's role is to serve the society, and bureaucracy or political perks are NOT normal. Not the same thing.
As it happens, the private railways example is IMO an example of bad regulation, even though I tend to consider this a domain of public service and a strategic domain, and so I even wonder whether it should not be, as such, state property. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Corporations don't do bureaucracy? ROFLMAO! Oh, they certainly also do those other Bad Things you mention. But they sure do bureaucracy too... Yeah, it makes them less effective and hurts their bottom line, but that doesn't prevent them from doing it.
I agree with you that railways are a bad example, though, because you're right, they shouldn't be private. They were just the most obvious example I could think of off the top of my head of excessively bureaucratic private organisations vs. much more efficient public sector ones providing essentially the same services.
As about press subsidizing, it was no hyperbole at all. When you start subsidizing press, you must subsidize it all
No, there is no rule saying you must subsidize it all. Swedish press subsidys has been targeted at minor publications in accordance to sales figures. That is if you have a big enough newspaper, you do not get subsidized.
And thus your ideological story of the evilness of press subsidizing and the slippery slope it leads to, does not hold up. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
To return to the interesting part.
If there is no rule saying you must subsidize it all and then own the press, billionnaires will still be able to come up with more journals, better quality, wider audience. So you didn't solve the problem of the press falling prey to corporate interests, which was the point in Jake and my discussing press subsidy. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Argh, drawing conclusions about my supposed ideology. It would be nice if you could limit yourself to countering my arguments. "Outing" me as the Enemy disguised in sheep skin is a bit silly.
No, you are misinterpreting me. I am not saying you are an enemy because you have an ideology, I am helping you see your ideology by pointing it out. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Arguments and ideas is what I'm interested in. I see you don't actually answer to my latest reply on the matter. Maybe you were convinced after all. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
If there is no rule saying you must subsidize it all and then own the press, billionnaires will still be able to come up with more journals, better quality, wider audience. So you didn't solve the problem of the press falling prey to corporate interests,
But - as I have already noted elsewhere - there is no law of nature saying that the private press will always be better, more interesting or have a wider audience.
In point of fact, the state-sponsored press quite often has both higher quality content and greater viewership/readership than the private press in those countries where it's being done properly. Of course, nobody wants to read a Pravda, but that's not what anybody here is proposing anyway, so I fail to see the relevance of that fact...
