who do you expect is the person deciding what reporting is free and fair? is there a governmental regulatory body, created with the purpose of determining if the reporting was factual? shouldn’t the efficiency of this process be improved via pre-approving any media by this regulator to avoid fines?
is there a governmental regulatory body, created with the purpose of determining if the reporting was factual?
yes
shouldn’t the efficiency of this process be improved via pre-approving any media by this regulator to avoid fines?
You’re looking to slippery slope this into saying this would lead to a system in which only state approved viewpoints should be shown. which is what we currently have. so, what is your idea?
you guys are hilarious, I used to live somewhere where this system exists and was designed with all these right reasons and now a social media post that conflicts with the state’s viewpoint will land you a 10 year sentence.
this seems like an especially likely outcome if designed in the current US political climate.
my point is regulation is not a solution and I don’t see any way to overcome this under capitalism. the only thing that might work is some kind of worker-operated cooperative like what the guys at 404 media are doing.
So what is the solution short of a complete US revolution which will have hundreds of thousands if not millions killed and hoping that everyone will come out socialists, anarchists and communists on the other side?
I do not disagree that the country SHOULD be socialist, anarchist and/or communist. I do not see that happening anytime soon unless an actual civil war breaks out.
implementation of my proposal would still require a minor revolution as the current system will not allow to elect a legislator that will pass these points:
Designate any newspaper, TV/YouTube/telegram channel, blog, Instagram account, etc with more than a 100k monthly views/impressions/followers/whatever as a public faced media.
Make the only allowed ownership form of these media outlets something like worker cooperatives.
Somewhat limit the ownership stakes so that no single member of this cooperative can make all the decisions.
The cooperative should have public financial records so the anyone can see where the revenue comes from.
This still does not protect against a billionaire buying out everyone in the cooperative through donations via multiple shell companies, but it is an improvement.
What I like is that a large media holding can still exist under this scheme, but any corruption would be somewhat apparent.
I dont disagree with the idea. In fact I quite like it. As youve said though, it has flaws. We won’t ever have a perfect system and have to work with what were given. If i ever could, I would go for what youre proposing.
governmental regulatory body, created with the purpose of determining if the reporting was factual
Yes, thats the FCC, they did that historically, and required equal time/space for both democratic candidates and republican candidates. Naturally that meant channels would count up every 3 second clip and replay, and surrogates/pundits didn’t count at all.
Any arrangement is state-controlled by virtue of the state being the only entity capable of enforcing any arrangement, the only difference is if the state delegates control to the bourgeois or another entity. The latter at least has the potential to be beholden to the workers.
I am not proposing we waste any energy bringing back the fairness doctrine, its purpose was easily circumvented while it existed.
who do you expect is the person deciding what reporting is free and fair? is there a governmental regulatory body, created with the purpose of determining if the reporting was factual? shouldn’t the efficiency of this process be improved via pre-approving any media by this regulator to avoid fines?
yes
You’re looking to slippery slope this into saying this would lead to a system in which only state approved viewpoints should be shown. which is what we currently have. so, what is your idea?
you guys are hilarious, I used to live somewhere where this system exists and was designed with all these right reasons and now a social media post that conflicts with the state’s viewpoint will land you a 10 year sentence.
this seems like an especially likely outcome if designed in the current US political climate.
my point is regulation is not a solution and I don’t see any way to overcome this under capitalism. the only thing that might work is some kind of worker-operated cooperative like what the guys at 404 media are doing.
So what is the solution short of a complete US revolution which will have hundreds of thousands if not millions killed and hoping that everyone will come out socialists, anarchists and communists on the other side?
I do not disagree that the country SHOULD be socialist, anarchist and/or communist. I do not see that happening anytime soon unless an actual civil war breaks out.
implementation of my proposal would still require a minor revolution as the current system will not allow to elect a legislator that will pass these points:
This still does not protect against a billionaire buying out everyone in the cooperative through donations via multiple shell companies, but it is an improvement. What I like is that a large media holding can still exist under this scheme, but any corruption would be somewhat apparent.
also there is still a problem with foreign based media outlets, I don’t have a way to deal with them at this point
I dont disagree with the idea. In fact I quite like it. As youve said though, it has flaws. We won’t ever have a perfect system and have to work with what were given. If i ever could, I would go for what youre proposing.
Yes, thats the FCC, they did that historically, and required equal time/space for both democratic candidates and republican candidates. Naturally that meant channels would count up every 3 second clip and replay, and surrogates/pundits didn’t count at all.
what you are proposing is basically censorship, and state censorship is much easier to consolidate than the current billionaire-based one
Any arrangement is state-controlled by virtue of the state being the only entity capable of enforcing any arrangement, the only difference is if the state delegates control to the bourgeois or another entity. The latter at least has the potential to be beholden to the workers.
I am not proposing we waste any energy bringing back the fairness doctrine, its purpose was easily circumvented while it existed.