what, the BBC don't even have official editorial independence, it has supposed "impartiality" (lol) but it's fairly well integrated with the rest of the state's business, ministers meet with BBC guys all the time. also, unrelated, not a fan of the hyperrealistic doge mouths. it's bad to look at
ministers meet with BBC guys all the time
You see that's different because they don't have officially written control over it they just get to decide who's in charge of the board which get to decide who's in managerial positions which get to decide whether or not you have a job. Totally different.
Back when the BBC Trust existed there were some teeth that kept this kind of thing from being anywhere near the current mess it is, but Cameron dismantled the Trust. Ofcom has nowhere near the teeth the Trust had and the process is reactive rather than proactive, the Trust would independently slap the BBC without being prompted by complaints whereas Ofcom literally does nothing without complaints and even then has extremely limited powers.
German state affiliated media doesn't have that, either, they even have party-appointed members on the board of editors.
:vote: even harder, this is all because you didn't :vote: hard enough
Ah but you see in Communist china the state appoints people who agree with the state wheras the in the UK, the state just doesn't appoint people who disagree with the state. Totally different.
Socialist states should just start calling them editorially independent while being the ultimate appointers of the leadership who decide that "editing".
With a structure like the current BBC (minus the BBC Trust that used to regulate it) the organisation becomes a mouthpiece of the state by virtue of being filled top to bottom with ideologically chosen people and a leadership carrying out a specific mission.
I am leaning towards the argument that the defining thing that matters is whether it is under proletarian or bourgeoise control. Under proletarian control the BBC would become a mouthpiece of the proletarian state within 5 years of reorganisation from the top down.
The argument socialists have against doing this kind of thing is that the capitalist world would still claim it's state-controlled, but I see very little reason not to do at least to expose bullshit when there are no downsides given the outcome would likely not be different to the existing orgs.
It would at least be nice to be able to come back with “CGTN has literally the exact same organizational structure as the BBC”
Keep in mind that virtually every state-media outlet claims editorial independence, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary.
For example, Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe, Open Technology Fund, Current Time TV, Alhurra, Radio Sawa, and Radio Televisión Martí are all part of the US Agency for Global Media (formerly known as the Broadcasting Board of Governors), which requires its outlets through its top broadcasting standards to be “consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States” along with its broadcasting principle of “The capability to provide a surge capacity to support United States foreign policy objectives during crises abroad”. According to the spokesperson of the House Foreign Affairs Committee:
We pay for the VOA to provide news that supports our national security objectives.
USAGM’s CEO is appointed by the U.S. President. The current CEO is Kelu Chao, who was appointed by Biden and has been reinstalling many of the USAGM executives at Radio Free Asia and Radio Free Europe that were purged by the former CEO Michael Pack (Trump's appointee).
acronyms are truly a powerful tool for propaganda because it allows you to distill the entire sinister agenda of an organization into a cute little word
i know it's supposed to be the "pointing soyjacks" but those dogs look like they're sieg-heiling
We've got soyface blue checkmark doge here, people. This is not a drill.
What I'd like all these libs to address is why State-media is supposed to be any worse or any more biased than privately owned media. Instead of a mouthpiece for the state, you simply have a mouthpiece for whatever rich person owns the outlet.
in addition to what you said, privately owned media gets subsidies from the state anyway, so they have a strong financial incentive to not badmouth the state, or their owners. Then you have the editorial board scrubbing iconoclastic articles of whatever little class consciousness managed to make its way in.
Then there's the entire revolving door of private sector -> state -> private sector. A job like white house press secretary is expected to have media experience, and to know how to deal with loaded questions, etc., so you know there's bootlickers in the media gunning to get in a room like that, and that curbs their instinct to ask pointed question. Again. the financial incentive overrides the instinct to truly challenge power.
Then finally there's just the trickle down nature of information with respect to foreign policy. Sure you might have a handful of reporters willing to fly out to a war zone and wear a helmet, etc. But that's expensive. Most of the time you're just gonna take state department press releases, edit them down to be less TL;DR and then release them with some bourgeois commentary as "news." Even if you do fly a journalist out to a war zone, you're not gonna get any information that challenges power, because the news corporation and the state will work together to keep you in a little journalistic pig pen deep inside a safe zone, far behind front lines. So at the end of the day your "coverage" will still be limited.
