The Forum > Article Comments > Do we really need public funded journalism? > Comments
Do we really need public funded journalism? : Comments
By Chris Lewis, published 19/10/2017Trying to define what quality journalism means is a bit like unwittingly taking part in the age-old debate about what is art and what is not.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- ...
- 7
- 8
- 9
-
- All
Posted by Armchair Critic, Thursday, 19 October 2017 1:50:19 PM
| |
A billion a year to push perverted dogmas and made up narratives.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 19 October 2017 2:30:35 PM
| |
The following link explains why objective reporting has
never been more necessary: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-10/sunderland-objective-reproting-has-never-been-more-necessary/6764320 Newspapers will always pander to their readers prejudices. Social and political leanings dictate who reads what. That's why programs like Four Corners who do investigative journalism are so important. Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 19 October 2017 3:38:38 PM
| |
Never a truer word Foxy!
Cheers, Alan B. Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 19 October 2017 4:23:33 PM
| |
Long live the ABC.
Beats the commercial crap hands down. Even not having ads makes it worthwhile. Posted by ateday, Thursday, 19 October 2017 5:16:12 PM
| |
"The following link explains why objective reporting has
never been more necessary". Well you never said a truer word Foxy, pity the last place likely to give it to us are the ones we all have to pay for, whether we want them or not, ABC, SBS etc. We all know that any government service will be full of incompetent "B" graders on very much 'A" grade salaries, usually with private agendas, definitely the wrong people to look to for any truth or intelligent commentary Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 19 October 2017 7:23:00 PM
|
Well I could come up with a reason why it may be essential.
Privately owned media corporations are essentially built around profits.
If they become unprofitable, they may sensationalise news to generate more sales or advertising revenue.
Sensationalised stories sell.
A public broadcaster would 'technically' be free from a needing to sensationalise headlines for increased sales and advertising revenue.
You mention quality news.
Well all I have to say is that there is a difference between 'facts' and 'narrative and conjecture'.
I'm going to say it twice to drive it home.
'FACTS' and 'NARRATIVE and CONJECTURE'
Also there is no longer any investigative journalism.
The reason Fox has good ratings is because people like Sean Hannity focus on facts and actually investigate and research stories, and the reason your 2500 journalists are all out of work is because they did not know investigating and researching stories means and they just repeated establishment talking points.
That linked article on the job looses was quite amusing.
The MSM blames fake news, when the MSM is fake news.
Ahahaha
If media want to push tired regurgitated disproven talking points, then they are only as credible as the idiots who are willing to buy into it.
It's no wonder your media is failing.