Everyone is aware of state funded broadcasting in the West and how it generally espouses predominantly leftist views. In Australia we have two such organisations, ABC and SBS, whose leftist ideology permeates their news but also the majority of the programming.
I am wondering though, how much proof is there of governments giving money to other supposedly independent media organisations? I have heard of many million dollar grants being given to companies to 'support journalism' but I'm having trouble finding actual records of this. My point being that generally when you give large amounts of money to an organisation you would be expecting something in return. Is all media state funded to some degree?
please show me your citations for how these networks are "government funded" because they're literally not.
Noah Collins
It was more of a question if you actually read my post properly, I am looking for proof. I have definitely heard of governments giving money to prop up media organisations in this country. Probably because they're all losing money in the current environment and the state does not want to lose them.
Oliver Jenkins
it's not a question, it's a "loaded" question. it's a statement veiled as a question. i read it properly, i just chose to treat it as what it was rather than what you try to pretend it is. the truth is that these outlets aren't state funded. they're not. companies like viacom get subsidies from the government, yes, but not generally to for their media contributions from what i can tell. and i've been unable to locate a single example of newscorp getting a subsidy. even still, that wouldn't qualify ANY of them as "state funded" because it's common place for the government to give subsidies to companies that work with a large physical infrastructure the way that the networks do.
they're just not. i mean they're not. you could accurately discuss things like Operation Mockingbird and the implications of that, but to suggest that we have secretly state-funded media in the US is just so totally wrong and disconnected from the real world. it's pathetic. it's like the way a child or an edgy teenager views the world.
Leo Hughes
Government funded media is good. It means the people have control over it.
But what we have is either oligarch controlled media (domestic and foreign) or lobby controlled media like "radio free europe" which is controlled by the army or cia.
The BBC is part of the military.
Jose Williams
>and i've been unable to locate a single example of newscorp getting a subsidy
Here is one at least, an $880 million tax rebate from Aus Government to Murdoch.
You can call my question loaded, maybe it was. But it's an issue I think is worth exploring, that the government is propping up these big media companies.
Isaiah Reed
>you could accurately discuss things like Operation Mockingbird and the implications of that >but to suggest that we have secretly state-funded media in the US is just so totally wrong
>You could talk about government organisations having journalists and prominent media figures on their payrolls to spread propaganda. >But to suggest the state is funding media! Oy vey!
Aaron Reyes
Yes interesting. Reminds me of this interview with Udo Ulfkotte a journalist who turned whistle blower in regards to intelligence agencies role in manipulating news stories all over the West.
well you're kind of proving my point here. they got a subsidy from the australian government, not the US government, so which government is it that they're in bed with now? you saying that FOX news is an australian run subversion operation?
or are the australian and US governments in cahoots to put sean hannity on the air?
your question is loaded and it's disconnected from reality. i'm pointing out the absurdity just to demonstrate that "subsidy" does not mean "state funded" and it doesn't mean anything inherently shady. beyond that, a lot of the reporting on subsidies and who gets them and why is BAD and outright FAULTY.
the fact that australia is giving them subsidies just goes to show you that they aren't owned by a single government at all.
John Ramirez
paying an individual journalist or even a producer to plant a story, or more accurate in the case of Operation Mockingbird, approaching them and REQUESTING that they plant stories in the name of national interests, isn't even remotely in the same ballpark as considering a media outlet "State Run". so oyy vey yourself, rabbi.
Elijah Mitchell
Daily reminder that Australia is full of petrol sniffers.
But CNN is literally run by CIA niggers. Anderson Cooper is a CIA nigger.
Austin Parker
anderson is literally a CIA nigger, yes, and they probably have other people on the inside of media companies too. but even in a COINTELPRO-style situation, where the agencies send in moles to try to work their way to the top of the org, just to control it or bring it down, it still does not equate to "state funded" or even "state run" media. i mean you look at all of the movements that were infected by COINTELPRO back in the 60s and 70s, you obviously would not refer to them as "state run" just because the government sent in agents to work undercover. i mean you wouldn't call the Black Panthers "state run" obviously.
Noah Cook
Seems like some weird semantics more than the truth.
I think it's reasonable to have to define what you mean by the "state" especially if Trump is truly at war with the deep state.
But nevertheless, you can't really say it's entirely wrong to say an organization that's being run by state operatives that infiltrated it is "state run". I mean we do say ISIS=Mossad don't we?
Lincoln White
No this was just one example of a government giving money to a big media organisation, through a tax break in this case. And this is not to prove anything in regards to collusion between any specific media organisation or nation as such, it's just one of possibly many examples.
Honestly you are sounding just like that chick who interviewed Peterson recently, I never said any of the things you are asserting.
Daniel Harris
it's a huge difference, when you say "state funded media" it means something specific and you know it. it's not a semantic argument, it's a question of OP misleading and misrepresenting the reality of the situation. the media is not "state run". it's not even anything comparable to "state run". the fact that intelligence organizations get in there just testifies to the fact that they DONT have control over them. in this world, there are a million different factions, the CIA or the FBI could be one, just because they provably do use infiltrative agents, that doesn't mean they "run" anything or that the organizations are state run.
it's not a fucking "semantic" difference it's two entirely separate things with entirely separate character and nature. they're not even close to eachother, sorry.
i hate the media too but you go and say "hurrrrr the media is state run" you just sound like a mouthbreathing tard, sorry.
Aiden Perez
I don't think you could have such control of the narrative in regards to things like geopolitical commentary through the deployment of CIA nigger 'moles.' Notice, not one media organisation was opposed to any war or 'intervention' you care to name. I refer back to the Udo Ulfkotte video I posted earlier where he claims these agencies or the Pentagon literally wrote these articles and he just signed his name on them. You don't get that sort of control through infiltrating an organisation by stealth, you either buy it or use the law to push this propaganda.
Colton Powell
dude stfu no one even knows who "you" are because you keep using different IPs and your tag keeps changing. so don't act like we're supposed to know the entire context of your comments. if you want to talk like that, stop using proxies or whatever you're doing. dumbass.
if you're the OP then you're suggesting that the media is state run, and you're trying to pussyfoot around it and pretend that "you're just asking a question", yeah ok. fuck off kid. if you want to push a "media is state run" narrative then do it, but it's not true. and if you want to say something but then pretend you're not saying it just because you say it in the form of a question then i would politely suggest you kill yourself, dumb kangaroonigger.
Lincoln Butler
hahahaha oh realy? yeah sure guy, that's why CNN is fully backing the presidents tensions with north korea right? come on man. you're being so stupid here. in case you don't know, CNN was founded by one of the most ideologically dedicated globalists in the world. he donated 1 BILLION dollars of his own money to the united nations. that's why they support globalist wars. similar stories with other outlets.
what a retarded fucking premise you're advancing, im sorry.
Jack Hughes
you just have no clue how things work, you know? just no clue how the world is. lots of people with lots of agendas. that's how it is. if you honestly think there's some centralized control over things like that i can promise you there's not. you think if the US government controlled the media that the president would get so much negative press coverage? lmfao come on man. just come on. you can look at ACTUAL state run media companies and you can see how they are. our media is OBVIOUSLY not state run.
Joseph Davis
OP I’m not sure if the stations receive direct funding but there is a direct revolving door between government and media, especially in the states, and obviously in the UK and Australia where we have the ABC. Almost all the major stations had prominent executives or presenters with a spousal or work relationship with the Hillary campaign or DNC. Anderson Cooper of CNN is literally an ex-CIA intern and agent
>Government funded media is good. It means (((the people))) have control over it.
FTFY kike.
Per the ABC charter in Australia it must consider all views but then in the next line it says it isn’t required to give equal time to all views. It’s executive team is appointed by politicians who do NOT answer to the people and they hire their pozzed friends in all production, presenting and management positions.
The ABC here recently interviewed Hillary Clinton. They didn’t ask her anything about the $300 million+ our government has sent to her foundations, nor about her many scandals, nor about her drunken reaction to losing. They gave her a total puff piece.
State controlled media is for the benefit of the state and not the people. Have you ever voted to choose the directors of the ABC?
Jason Wright
Jesus talk about a sperg out. It's all me if its Aus flag, alternating between phone and desktop because I left for work.
You've been seriously butt hurt since the first post for some reason. I'm not making definitive assertions about anything whether you interpret them this way or not, because my thoughts are joy clear on this matter. There is undoubtedly money and political favours being traded between media and government throughout the West, to what extent does this influence is what I am exploring.
