Dan Rather wants Obama to help save the news
 

This is a very very bad idea Mr. Rather.

Overlooking the obvious "State run media"..

I tire of every industry that is having trouble turning to the Fed's for help.

http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/135834

I'd have to agree. The government and the media should be kept very far apart.

I don't think there's anything left to save. All the services look like "People" magazine and rags now. Hurry, hurry, get your dose of celeb pap. By the way, Jupiter (a planet in our solar system) has just disappeared, leaving scientists baffled over why Americans are not drinking more light beer.

Buddahaid

This what your talking about ?
 

Jupiter has just disappeared?
http://www.kansascity.com/news/natio...y/1346057.html not to cause Thread hijack.

I wonder if the hole is composed of trillions of 1:4:9 obelisks? You know, "something wonderful".

Buddahaid

Quality media can't be saved, because there's no demand for it. People these days like 5 second soundbites, flashy graphics, overly dramatic music, talking heads that scream and foam at the mouth, and "debate" shows that involve people shouting scripted soundbites at each other.

If there was still a lot of demand for quality news presented in a calm, reasonable, and intelligent way, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer would be the top-rated show on television.

Uh Mr. Rather needs to understand that you can't have a "Free and Independent" press if it is getting funding from the government. :nope:

I agree with what everyone is saying. A seperatation between press and state is fundamental to any free people. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case in the last six months. So now the people are starting to take it upon themselves to look at the facts, through other sources. This is a good thing Dan. BTW where's Kenneth?

Although I don't agree with what Rather is supporting, I think it's important to note that there's a HUGE difference between state-funded media and state-controlled media.

Many free democratic countries have thriving state-funded media that is objective and perfectly free to criticize the government. The BBC state-funded, but it is still widely considered the gold standard for quality, objective journalism. They're also free to broadcast shows like Top Gear, which rips on the government (and especially its environmental policies) at every opportunity. Other high-quality state-funded broadcasters that I'm familiar with are the ABC and SBS in Australia and TVNZ in New Zealand.

In many cases these public broadcasters are superior to their commercial counterparts. For starters, they don't have to show advertisements. This is great for TV shows and even better for live sports. But more importantly, they don't have to pander to lowest common denominator audiences just to bring in the ratings. That leaves them free to broadcast higher quality programs instead of the reality TV and sitcom garbage you find on commercial networks.

There's a huge gulf between that sort of programming and state-controlled media, like you find in dictatorships.

The US has state-funded media. It's called PBS and it is less than objective when it comes to reporting the news. It is a bastion for leftist ideals, and biased reporting. Much like the EPA is a bastion of leftist controls on the US becoming energy self-proficient.

PBS only gets a small part of its funding from the federal government (about 20%). The networks I was talking about get upwards of 75% of their money from the government, with the rest coming from retail sales (mostly DVDs of their shows).

Most of PBS's money comes from donations from viewers, foundations, and corporations; hence their frequent pledge drives. As a result, PBS has to pander to its wealthiest viewers, who are often part of the liberal elite. That said, most of the people who accuse PBS of bias have never watched it. Their news broadcasts get beyond the soundbites and are a lot more objective and intelligent than the cr*p on CNN/MSNBC/Fox. Frontline is also one of the best shows on television.

The BBC and networks similar to them work on a completely different system. Every household in the UK who has a TV has to pay an annual license fee that's set by the British government. Right now it's roughly $300 per household per year.

The Australian ABC is almost entirely funded by direct government grants. That didn't stop The Chaser from humiliating and infuriating the Australian government and endearing themselves to the Australian with the Greatest Prank of All Time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chaser_APEC_pranks

WTF? :doh:

Oh well the vast majority of the media is already in the tank for the current administration anyhow. In fact they struggle to find villans now that Bush is out of office.

What don't you understand? I thought I explained the difference pretty well. Do you really think the BBC is the same as the Iranian state media?

Errrr... uhhh... ummm... lemme think about it :haha:

There does not need to be anything new from the government except more education so ignorant people don't believe every word that comes out of Fox or CNN.

And yes I said ignorant because you have to be so to believe some of the tabloid stuff they spew.