Nonprofit News?

[ShaneEnochs]

I was just watching a Youtube video in which the Youtuber was complaining about the ads during the Olympics, and one of the comments made me think:


Move to england, easiest solution, the BBC wouldn't work in america and I can tell you why in one word: "non-profit".

I wonder if the reason our news media is so jacked up is because it's a for-profit business, instead of just people interested in reporting the news. This would also explain why the best news comes from the Internet.

Thoughts?

[PaulConventionWV]

News on the internet is for-profit, too.

[Nickels]

so instead of corporations controlling the media for profit, you prefer the government sponsor and control the media for their political gains? I guess that's why anti-America Americans love RT, it's intended for the Russian government's agenda, which just happens to be the same as disgruntled Americans.

[ShaneEnochs]

so instead of corporations controlling the media for profit, you prefer the government sponsor and control the media for their political gains? I guess that's why anti-America Americans love RT, it's intended for the Russian government's agenda, which just happens to be the same as disgruntled Americans.

Take it down a notch, captain. I said no such thing.

[Nickels]

Take it down a notch, captain. I said no such thing.

then help me understand. what other motive is there to reporting news? altruism?

[angelatc]

then help me understand. what other motive is there to reporting news? altruism?

Sure. There's some people like that left. People are always going to be people, so there will always be bias though. That's hard to get past.

For the OP, there's at least one site that does that now...can't remember the name of it. But they are always begging. Apparently a lack of propaganda doesn't attract an audience.

[pcosmar]

then help me understand. what other motive is there to reporting news? altruism?

altruism?
perhaps,, or civic duty.
A moral imperative and calling to educate and inform honestly.

I have heard that people often went into the ministry and even health care as a "calling" and not for any personal profit.

[Nickels]

Sure. There's some people like that left. People are always going to be people, so there will always be bias though. That's hard to get past.

For the OP, there's at least one site that does that now...can't remember the name of it. But they are always begging. Apparently a lack of propaganda doesn't attract an audience.

I guess I can see that there's a motive to be honest, and in altruism, tell people what you know. But to have the reach and audience as the MSM whether in Britain, or US, it takes money and staff. Websites are becoming increasingly accessible, so that's about to change. But even to reach people by the millions, there are costs which not many people can bear without an agenda or sponsor.

[kcchiefs6465]

I would gladly pay Ben Swann. No reason at all a man of such integrity speaking as much truth as he, should work for free. The other supposed "journalists" can work for free. (For all I care)

[Cowlesy]

I'd hope some of our UK friends could provide their opinions on whether or not the BBC has any bias :)

[pcosmar]

Nonprofit News?

It is not even about profits. Though I am sure lots of phony money shuffles around and changes hands.

It is about Agendas, and controlling the narrative.

[PaulConventionWV]

altruism?
perhaps,, or civic duty.
A moral imperative and calling to educate and inform honestly.

I have heard that people often went into the ministry and even health care as a "calling" and not for any personal profit.

But you can't expect that in a free market. If there's a profit to be made in news, then why are people saying that shouldn't happen?

[heavenlyboy34]

I was just watching a Youtube video in which the Youtuber was complaining about the ads during the Olympics, and one of the comments made me think:



I wonder if the reason our news media is so jacked up is because it's a for-profit business, instead of just people interested in reporting the news. This would also explain why the best news comes from the Internet.

Thoughts?
We've already got non-profit news-NPR. It's as biased as any other "news" you'll find. (I Know it will be argued that NPR gets federal funding, which is true-but it is mostly funded by donors. That's why they have biannual fund drives.)

[ShaneEnochs]

But you can't expect that in a free market. If there's a profit to be made in news, then why are people saying that shouldn't happen?

I'm not necessarily saying it shouldn't. I think a case study can be done, though, on the differences between MSM and local news. MSM has become more about entertainment and personality than news, and thus draws in more money because of a certain narrative. Rinse and repeat, one might say.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm not necessarily saying it shouldn't. I think a case study can be done, though, on the differences between MSM and local news. MSM has become more about entertainment and personality than news, and thus draws in more money because of a certain narrative. Rinse and repeat, one might say.
Broadcast media has always been more about the entertainment factor. Remember Jennings, Cronkite, Koppel, etc?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI