Should the US have a independent tax supported BBC like news channel?

[oc2002]

The US should have an independent, tax supported, BBC styled news agency with its access to all TV stations to report to the public.

I have wondered over this in the past but never realy thought of posting it here. In that the corporatized media runs its news programs for profit, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ... are all into the BUSSNESS of news but fail to provide journalistic independence and highest standards. For instance , the coverage of what is going on in Iraq has been taken almost from direct dictation of the Sec. of Defense, or Penatgon instead of on the spot independent reporting. I am sure there are many more examples, and that is beside media chanel FOX and its clearly slanted right-wing mantra.

Thats why I trust more the BBC than the whole lot of US media reporting. As a free cournty, the public needs to have access to untainted, un-spun news coverage of the facts, and the whole story. Without it, the public has no way of knowing what is right and what is propaganda.

Thanks.

[izzie]

1. We have trouble with PBS I can not see us doing it.

By the way I could only get PBS on my TV for 3 years and I really liked it.If you can only get one to come in that is the one to have.

[oc2002]

5. re..PBS is not a BBC

Although I like PBS News Hour, and some of its other programs, it is a Private network supported by Corporate donations. Mostly for the arts, before there where 100's of cable chanels that now do the same thing.

PBS is not a indepenent natianalized news agency like BBC, it has its corporate ties that no doubt have some influence on its reporting.

"PBS, headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia, is a private, non-profit media enterprise owned and operated by the nation's 349 public television stations. A trusted community resource, PBS uses the power of noncommercial television, the Internet and other media to enrich the lives of all Americans through quality programs and education services that inform, inspire and delight. Available to 99 percent of American homes with televisions and to an increasing number of digital multimedia households, PBS serves nearly 100 million people each week."

[montanacowboy]

2. Have you listened to NPR lately?

I turn it off more than on, it's becoming another arm of corporate pravda - I will not donate to it any longer and certainly would not give to any other tax supported station. It all turns into the same thing sooner or later. Sorry to be so negative, but reality bites.

[Caution]

3. The Voice of America is the US equivalent of the BBC

Or it should be. Instead it is typically a propaganda tool of the US government. It is a pretty decent news outlet though very pro-US. I would seriously suggest that more people go out and buy shortwave radios. They can be had for under $100 and there are some incredible news agencies out there.

Cuba, Taiwan, Norway, the UK, VOA, etc etc. Some great information can be had for free at pretty much any time of the day (though shortwave propagates a LOT better at night).

[oc2002]

13. re..VOA

I alway viewed the VoA as a propaganda counter of the cold war against communist marxist propaganda. Meant more for exporting our ideals than reporting domestic news or affairs TO the american public.

I do not know much about this however, so I may be off base.

[Killarney]

4. We need our own FoxNews

People won't watch PBS. They like the flashy style of Fox News. They like the outrageousness of Bill O'Reilly because they agree with him.

We need our own, attention-grabbing, flashy-styled network with outrageous people like Al Franken and Michael Moore hosting their own shows on our left-leaning network.

It is ridiculous that Fox News continues to perpetrate its lies night after night and a lot of people really and truly think everything they say is true because "it's on the news." And we have no people to back us up (don't anyone even suggest Colmes) and no network to show the other side.

Last night, I watched for 5 minutes and they said that Hillary Clinton was to blame for us running out of the flu vaccine (because she socialized the vaccine companies) and they accused Clinton of being "handed" Bin Laden and refusing him.

It is ridiculous!

[oc2002]

6. re..flashy

I think you underestimate the American public as a juvinile looking for flashy news coverage...sure that may get peoples attention, but once they keep hearing the same old tired lines and notice the limited bounds that such policalization of the news carries, they will look elswhere.

I think that perhaps this could be a campaign issue, to create a nationalaly televised program, that is indepenedent of corporate support, and is televised on one of the major networks during the prime time 7pm - 8pm.

This could be a campaign issue.

[Killarney]

14. It's working for Fox...

not only are they not looking elsewhere, they're buying books and talking dolls.

[forgethell]

7. Let me get this straight.

You object to the coverage of the Iraq war coming from the Sec of Defense, and think that getting it from a government sponsored network is going to give you more accurate reportage? I fail to see how that can happen.

Now, maybe if this was set up in a Democratic administration, we might get a left leaning network, but this is a Republican administration.

In any event, I don't trust the government even more than I don't trust big business. Look at, for instance, the excesses of the IRS, the FBI, and others. Big business may be run by the forces of evil, but at least there is some market and governmental discipline. what will discipline the beaucracy of this new network.

I know we all complain about the unfair RW media, but I have faith in humanity. As long as we tell the truth, we will eventually win, despite the efforts of the Sauron of our times. the truth will get out.

Mery Christmas.

[oc2002]

9. re..."let me get this straight"

How it could work..

I see it as operating appart from the official government sources.

More like the way the BBC is set up as an enetity to itself, and no government branch can tell it what, who, or when they can report on. A sort of Office of Management and Budget that audits all other government agencies, but unlike OMB, does not report to any of them.

Completely indepandant journalism with no money strings attached, even a built in automatic increases in budgets as the BBC has.

[KharmaTrain]

8. Would you pay for a license?

That's how the BBC operates...a direct tax on the number of TV and radios you have. No way this would ever happen here.

Our version is NPR/PBS...which have various sources of funding. Federal money helped set the networks up in the 60s and 70's but has dwindled to 10% or less of the CPB's revenues.

Yes, the remainder are from donors (the $5 a year guys like me) to the large corporates who use their donations for both image advertising (looks very nice to bankers and investors) or tax breaks. In some cases, this corporate money will go to fund a series that can be construed as conflicting (Mobil sponsoring "Nature") but a majority of the money flows to the local stations who use that money to produce local programs; some that are then contracted to the network.

The RW, especially O'Reilly, tries to make NPR and PBS appear as some left-wing government subsidized media. It's far from it. Thanks to the funding structure, these stations aren't under pressure to draw ratings, thus can devote resources and revenues to specific projects. He just hates them cause they won't give him his own show.

[oc2002]

11. re .. License

That is not a need to put a TV tax on any television, funding for this program could be done very well for well under 100 million per year, in a budget federal that encompases 1 Trillion dollars,, well its not much at all.

TV License Tax is the British way, not the American way.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

10. yes, sort of

I have to subscribe to Ralph Nader's idea on this one. We need to have a consumers union. Your "tax" is your dues in that union, and pays for the stations, salaries, etc. There is no reason not to have more than one.

[DACT]

12. Its called PBS

n/t

[TexasSissy]

15. If the govt. pays for it, it's not independent.

But we have PBS...viewer supported, with minimal tax dollars.

Some think that cable does away with the need for PBS. I disagree. Ken Burns' The Civil War was pitched to cable companies, but not one was interested. Only PBS. PBS doesn't have to be AS concerned with ratings. It answers to its members. Anyone, regardless of his/her views, can pay $$$ and become a member and therefore have input into what kind of shows are aired.

Sesame Street. The Civil War. Monty Python. All examples of what cable will not pay for (initially....until proven monetarily).

There is also an international news station (I forget the name of it). It shows newscasts from various countries. I've seen it. It's excellent. I have to pay extra to Comcast to get it, so I'm switching to satellite TV, where it comes w/the basic package. Talk about a view from different angles!