Biden vs Trump 2020 - vote now and discuss!

Kat

Biden

Very glad you are smiling, thanks.

mrussel1

Biden

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

I think the CBC model has worked really well here in Canada.



The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (French: Société Radio-Canada), branded as CBC/Radio-Canada, is a Canadian federal Crown corporation that serves as the national public broadcaster for both radio and television.[4] The English- and French-language service units of the corporation are commonly known as CBC and Radio-Canada, respectively.


CBC is the oldest existing broadcasting network in Canada. The CBC was established on November 2, 1936.

The CBC's federal funding is supplemented by revenue from commercial advertising on its television broadcasts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation


I think America would be well served to have a similar service.

What do you consider NPR?

Not nearly the scale, reach and influence of CBC. Comparatively speaking, think more BBC.

Yeah but that's a consumer decision.  I bet NPR is available to 99% of the people.  I agree it's not the size of CBC but it's still there. 

pjl44

I'm sitting this one out

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

I think the CBC model has worked really well here in Canada.



The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (French: Société Radio-Canada), branded as CBC/Radio-Canada, is a Canadian federal Crown corporation that serves as the national public broadcaster for both radio and television.[4] The English- and French-language service units of the corporation are commonly known as CBC and Radio-Canada, respectively.


CBC is the oldest existing broadcasting network in Canada. The CBC was established on November 2, 1936.

The CBC's federal funding is supplemented by revenue from commercial advertising on its television broadcasts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation


I think America would be well served to have a similar service.

What do you consider NPR?

Not nearly the scale, reach and influence of CBC. Comparatively speaking, think more BBC.

Yeah but that's a consumer decision.  I bet NPR is available to 99% of the people.  I agree it's not the size of CBC but it's still there. 

Yep. And if there's something we definitely don't want to model....

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-163.html

HughFreakingDillon

Biden

federally funded news in america would never fly. we get enough "defund the cbc" bullshit here from right wing nutters thinking it's an arm of trudeau (but magically, it wasn't for harper). 

Spiritual_Chaos

I'm sitting this one out

The Juggler said:

rgambs said:

Oversight and control are different things...Twitter oversees the Toddler-In-Chief, but they don't control him.

Yeah, I'm genuinely curious how it works though. lol
He's avoiding that question for some reason. 

More fun seeing the predatory market economy koolaid-drinkers going crazy and running wild with one could mean. 

I think the swedish system is pretty good. I believe UK has pretty much the same system. Granskningsnämnden in Sweden. In The UK Ofcom. Keeping an eye on the news being impartial, non-biased, accurate etc.

 Ben De Pear is the editor of the prestigious Channel 4 news program in the U.K. And he joins us now to explain. Thanks for being on.

BEN DE PEAR: Thank you.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: So Ofcom come does many things. But I am particularly interested here in its role as an arbiter of bias. How does that work?

DE PEAR: So Ofcom was set up by statute in the United Kingdom. Broadcasting has always been regulated by a regulatory body which is independent of the government but also independent of the broadcasters. And what it does is it really regulates and rules on three different areas. One is accuracy. One is bias. And the other is impartiality. Those three things Ofcom regulates television news in particular so that the journalists have a requirement under law here to be objective and nonpolitical.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: All right. Give me an example of how that plays out. Say I'm watching a news show, and I am - as a viewer, don't like what I'm hearing. I can call in and write to complain, and Ofcom investigates?

DE PEAR: Yes. So, obviously, Ofcom is a huge pain. It's a sort of thorn in our side. But I'm very glad it exists. I mean, we've breached accuracy twice in the last two years. We named someone as being dead who was actually dead, but the police hadn't named he was dead. And naming as dead is an official recognition here. So we had to apologize on air. We had to say we were very sorry, and we breached one of Ofcom's guidelines, which is a very important one, which is accuracy.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: But what about bias? One man's bias is another man's truth. How does Ofcom decide something like that?

DE PEAR: So when we are reporting an election here, we have to give exactly the same amount of time to each political party, especially the main parties. And Ofcom goes to the extent of pretty much timing how much time you have if they receive a complaint. So during elections, we are very careful in making sure that we give free and unbiased representation to each of the political parties. We still hold them to account. We give them very fierce and rigorous interviews. But we can't have one party on without the other. And one thing that cannot happen here is that any reporter or journalist or presenter who represents or works for the broadcasting organization cannot give any sense of their political beliefs or support. They have to remain absolutely impartial at all times.

I also do not have a problem with tax-funded public television/radio as in Sweden, or the UK etc. Or the NPR I guess, which the interview above is taken from. 

Think that. Publicly funded news. My god. THAT BROAD GOVERNMENT REACH!

Spiritual_Chaos

I'm sitting this one out

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

I think the CBC model has worked really well here in Canada.



The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (French: Société Radio-Canada), branded as CBC/Radio-Canada, is a Canadian federal Crown corporation that serves as the national public broadcaster for both radio and television.[4] The English- and French-language service units of the corporation are commonly known as CBC and Radio-Canada, respectively.


CBC is the oldest existing broadcasting network in Canada. The CBC was established on November 2, 1936.

The CBC's federal funding is supplemented by revenue from commercial advertising on its television broadcasts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation


I think America would be well served to have a similar service.

What do you consider NPR?

Not nearly the scale, reach and influence of CBC. Comparatively speaking, think more BBC.

Yeah but that's a consumer decision. . 

“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”

The Juggler

Biden

Spiritual_Chaos said:

The Juggler said:

rgambs said:

Oversight and control are different things...Twitter oversees the Toddler-In-Chief, but they don't control him.

Yeah, I'm genuinely curious how it works though. lol
He's avoiding that question for some reason. 

More fun seeing the predatory market economy koolaid-drinkers going crazy and running wild with one could mean. 

I think the swedish system is pretty good. I believe UK has pretty much the same system. Granskningsnämnden in Sweden. In The UK Ofcom. Keeping an eye on the news being impartial, non-biased, accurate etc.

 Ben De Pear is the editor of the prestigious Channel 4 news program in the U.K. And he joins us now to explain. Thanks for being on.

BEN DE PEAR: Thank you.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: So Ofcom come does many things. But I am particularly interested here in its role as an arbiter of bias. How does that work?

DE PEAR: So Ofcom was set up by statute in the United Kingdom. Broadcasting has always been regulated by a regulatory body which is independent of the government but also independent of the broadcasters. And what it does is it really regulates and rules on three different areas. One is accuracy. One is bias. And the other is impartiality. Those three things Ofcom regulates television news in particular so that the journalists have a requirement under law here to be objective and nonpolitical.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: All right. Give me an example of how that plays out. Say I'm watching a news show, and I am - as a viewer, don't like what I'm hearing. I can call in and write to complain, and Ofcom investigates?

DE PEAR: Yes. So, obviously, Ofcom is a huge pain. It's a sort of thorn in our side. But I'm very glad it exists. I mean, we've breached accuracy twice in the last two years. We named someone as being dead who was actually dead, but the police hadn't named he was dead. And naming as dead is an official recognition here. So we had to apologize on air. We had to say we were very sorry, and we breached one of Ofcom's guidelines, which is a very important one, which is accuracy.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: But what about bias? One man's bias is another man's truth. How does Ofcom decide something like that?

DE PEAR: So when we are reporting an election here, we have to give exactly the same amount of time to each political party, especially the main parties. And Ofcom goes to the extent of pretty much timing how much time you have if they receive a complaint. So during elections, we are very careful in making sure that we give free and unbiased representation to each of the political parties. We still hold them to account. We give them very fierce and rigorous interviews. But we can't have one party on without the other. And one thing that cannot happen here is that any reporter or journalist or presenter who represents or works for the broadcasting organization cannot give any sense of their political beliefs or support. They have to remain absolutely impartial at all times.

I also do not have a problem with tax-funded public television/radio as in Sweden, or the UK etc. Or the NPR I guess, which the interview above is taken from. 

Think that. Publicly funded news. My god. THAT BROAD GOVERNMENT REACH!

https://www.pbs.org/

pjl44

I'm sitting this one out

Spiritual_Chaos said:

The Juggler said:

rgambs said:

Oversight and control are different things...Twitter oversees the Toddler-In-Chief, but they don't control him.

Yeah, I'm genuinely curious how it works though. lol
He's avoiding that question for some reason. 

More fun seeing the predatory market economy koolaid-drinkers going crazy and running wild with one could mean. 

I think the swedish system is pretty good. I believe UK has pretty much the same system. Granskningsnämnden in Sweden. In The UK Ofcom. Keeping an eye on the news being impartial, non-biased, accurate etc.

 Ben De Pear is the editor of the prestigious Channel 4 news program in the U.K. And he joins us now to explain. Thanks for being on.

BEN DE PEAR: Thank you.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: So Ofcom come does many things. But I am particularly interested here in its role as an arbiter of bias. How does that work?

DE PEAR: So Ofcom was set up by statute in the United Kingdom. Broadcasting has always been regulated by a regulatory body which is independent of the government but also independent of the broadcasters. And what it does is it really regulates and rules on three different areas. One is accuracy. One is bias. And the other is impartiality. Those three things Ofcom regulates television news in particular so that the journalists have a requirement under law here to be objective and nonpolitical.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: All right. Give me an example of how that plays out. Say I'm watching a news show, and I am - as a viewer, don't like what I'm hearing. I can call in and write to complain, and Ofcom investigates?

DE PEAR: Yes. So, obviously, Ofcom is a huge pain. It's a sort of thorn in our side. But I'm very glad it exists. I mean, we've breached accuracy twice in the last two years. We named someone as being dead who was actually dead, but the police hadn't named he was dead. And naming as dead is an official recognition here. So we had to apologize on air. We had to say we were very sorry, and we breached one of Ofcom's guidelines, which is a very important one, which is accuracy.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: But what about bias? One man's bias is another man's truth. How does Ofcom decide something like that?

DE PEAR: So when we are reporting an election here, we have to give exactly the same amount of time to each political party, especially the main parties. And Ofcom goes to the extent of pretty much timing how much time you have if they receive a complaint. So during elections, we are very careful in making sure that we give free and unbiased representation to each of the political parties. We still hold them to account. We give them very fierce and rigorous interviews. But we can't have one party on without the other. And one thing that cannot happen here is that any reporter or journalist or presenter who represents or works for the broadcasting organization cannot give any sense of their political beliefs or support. They have to remain absolutely impartial at all times.

I also do not have a problem with tax-funded public television/radio as in Sweden, or the UK etc. Or the NPR I guess, which the interview above is taken from. 

Think that. Publicly funded news. My god. THAT BROAD GOVERNMENT REACH!

We have the same thing in the US. The FCC ensures equal time is given to major party candidates.

mrussel1

Biden

HughFreakingDillon said:

federally funded news in america would never fly. we get enough "defund the cbc" bullshit here from right wing nutters thinking it's an arm of trudeau (but magically, it wasn't for harper). 

That's exactly what NPR and PBS are... federally funded news.  And the same shit from the right here on it. 

dignin

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

I think the CBC model has worked really well here in Canada.



The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (French: Société Radio-Canada), branded as CBC/Radio-Canada, is a Canadian federal Crown corporation that serves as the national public broadcaster for both radio and television.[4] The English- and French-language service units of the corporation are commonly known as CBC and Radio-Canada, respectively.


CBC is the oldest existing broadcasting network in Canada. The CBC was established on November 2, 1936.

The CBC's federal funding is supplemented by revenue from commercial advertising on its television broadcasts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation


I think America would be well served to have a similar service.

What do you consider NPR?

Not nearly the scale, reach and influence of CBC. Comparatively speaking, think more BBC.

Yeah but that's a consumer decision.  I bet NPR is available to 99% of the people.  I agree it's not the size of CBC but it's still there. 

Yep. And if there's something we definitely don't want to model....

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-163.html

I don't understand your point here.

pjl44

I'm sitting this one out

dignin said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

I think the CBC model has worked really well here in Canada.



The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (French: Société Radio-Canada), branded as CBC/Radio-Canada, is a Canadian federal Crown corporation that serves as the national public broadcaster for both radio and television.[4] The English- and French-language service units of the corporation are commonly known as CBC and Radio-Canada, respectively.


CBC is the oldest existing broadcasting network in Canada. The CBC was established on November 2, 1936.

The CBC's federal funding is supplemented by revenue from commercial advertising on its television broadcasts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation


I think America would be well served to have a similar service.

What do you consider NPR?

Not nearly the scale, reach and influence of CBC. Comparatively speaking, think more BBC.

Yeah but that's a consumer decision.  I bet NPR is available to 99% of the people.  I agree it's not the size of CBC but it's still there. 

Yep. And if there's something we definitely don't want to model....

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-163.html

I don't understand your point here.

Canadian obscenity laws

dignin

HughFreakingDillon said:

federally funded news in america would never fly. we get enough "defund the cbc" bullshit here from right wing nutters thinking it's an arm of trudeau (but magically, it wasn't for harper). 

Look at the polling, defund the CBC is fringe. CBC is just as much an institution here as single payer health care and hockey.

HughFreakingDillon

Biden

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

federally funded news in america would never fly. we get enough "defund the cbc" bullshit here from right wing nutters thinking it's an arm of trudeau (but magically, it wasn't for harper). 

Look at the polling, defund the CBC is fringe. CBC is just as much an institution here as single payer health care and hockey.

i know it's fringe. but i'm saying the crazy that is fringe here becomes mainstream down below. 

dignin

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

federally funded news in america would never fly. we get enough "defund the cbc" bullshit here from right wing nutters thinking it's an arm of trudeau (but magically, it wasn't for harper). 

That's exactly what NPR and PBS are... federally funded news.  And the same shit from the right here on it. 

They are not the same as CBC. We fund our public broadcaster waaaay more. PBS and NPR get a pittance, not nearly enough to be competitive in the market. NPR has a donate link on their main webpage, and that's a damn shame. 


CBC's funding differs from that of the public broadcasters of many European nations, which collect a licence fee, or those in the United States, such as PBS and NPR, which receive some public funding but rely to a large extent on voluntary contributions from individual viewers and listeners. A Nanos Research poll from August 2014 conducted for Asper Media (National Post, Financial Post) showed 41% of Canadians wanted funding increased, 46% wanted it maintained at current levels, and only 10% wanted to see it cut.

HughFreakingDillon

Biden

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

federally funded news in america would never fly. we get enough "defund the cbc" bullshit here from right wing nutters thinking it's an arm of trudeau (but magically, it wasn't for harper). 

That's exactly what NPR and PBS are... federally funded news.  And the same shit from the right here on it. 

i honestly didn't know NPR was funded, and PBS, yes, i suppose you're right, i just didn't think about it as you don't really have an equivalent (which was not your point, just saying). what we have would be like NBC being federally funded. (but again, i know that wasn't your point). 

all that comes to mind when i think of pbs is telethons and lawrence welk. 

HughFreakingDillon

Biden

pjl44 said:

dignin said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

I think the CBC model has worked really well here in Canada.



The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (French: Société Radio-Canada), branded as CBC/Radio-Canada, is a Canadian federal Crown corporation that serves as the national public broadcaster for both radio and television.[4] The English- and French-language service units of the corporation are commonly known as CBC and Radio-Canada, respectively.


CBC is the oldest existing broadcasting network in Canada. The CBC was established on November 2, 1936.

The CBC's federal funding is supplemented by revenue from commercial advertising on its television broadcasts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation


I think America would be well served to have a similar service.

What do you consider NPR?

Not nearly the scale, reach and influence of CBC. Comparatively speaking, think more BBC.

Yeah but that's a consumer decision.  I bet NPR is available to 99% of the people.  I agree it's not the size of CBC but it's still there. 

Yep. And if there's something we definitely don't want to model....

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-163.html

I don't understand your point here.

Canadian obscenity laws

i still don't really understand your point. 

Halifax2TheMax

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

federally funded news in america would never fly. we get enough "defund the cbc" bullshit here from right wing nutters thinking it's an arm of trudeau (but magically, it wasn't for harper). 

That's exactly what NPR and PBS are... federally funded news.  And the same shit from the right here on it. 

They are not the same as CBC. We fund our public broadcaster waaaay more. PBS and NPR get a pittance, not nearly enough to be competitive in the market. NPR has a donate link on their main webpage, and that's a damn shame. 


CBC's funding differs from that of the public broadcasters of many European nations, which collect a licence fee, or those in the United States, such as PBS and NPR, which receive some public funding but rely to a large extent on voluntary contributions from individual viewers and listeners. A Nanos Research poll from August 2014 conducted for Asper Media (National Post, Financial Post) showed 41% of Canadians wanted funding increased, 46% wanted it maintained at current levels, and only 10% wanted to see it cut.

PBS and npr, and others, are funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. CPB is a quasi-governmental agency that receives appropriations from Congress and then divies up the money. Guess which political party drastically cut its budget and wanted to defund it completely?

mrussel1

Biden

Halifax2TheMax said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

federally funded news in america would never fly. we get enough "defund the cbc" bullshit here from right wing nutters thinking it's an arm of trudeau (but magically, it wasn't for harper). 

That's exactly what NPR and PBS are... federally funded news.  And the same shit from the right here on it. 

They are not the same as CBC. We fund our public broadcaster waaaay more. PBS and NPR get a pittance, not nearly enough to be competitive in the market. NPR has a donate link on their main webpage, and that's a damn shame. 


CBC's funding differs from that of the public broadcasters of many European nations, which collect a licence fee, or those in the United States, such as PBS and NPR, which receive some public funding but rely to a large extent on voluntary contributions from individual viewers and listeners. A Nanos Research poll from August 2014 conducted for Asper Media (National Post, Financial Post) showed 41% of Canadians wanted funding increased, 46% wanted it maintained at current levels, and only 10% wanted to see it cut.

PBS and npr, and others, are funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. CPB is a quasi-governmental agency that receives appropriations from Congress and then divies up the money. Guess which political party drastically cut its budget and wanted to defund it completely?

Yes absolutely. 

mrussel1

Biden

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

federally funded news in america would never fly. we get enough "defund the cbc" bullshit here from right wing nutters thinking it's an arm of trudeau (but magically, it wasn't for harper). 

That's exactly what NPR and PBS are... federally funded news.  And the same shit from the right here on it. 

They are not the same as CBC. We fund our public broadcaster waaaay more. PBS and NPR get a pittance, not nearly enough to be competitive in the market. NPR has a donate link on their main webpage, and that's a damn shame. 


CBC's funding differs from that of the public broadcasters of many European nations, which collect a licence fee, or those in the United States, such as PBS and NPR, which receive some public funding but rely to a large extent on voluntary contributions from individual viewers and listeners. A Nanos Research poll from August 2014 conducted for Asper Media (National Post, Financial Post) showed 41% of Canadians wanted funding increased, 46% wanted it maintained at current levels, and only 10% wanted to see it cut.

I'm not arguing the levels,  I'm just saying we have federal funding.  The reality is that's never been where the majority of Americans get their news,  even before the advent of 24 cable

Gern Blansten

Biden

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

federally funded news in america would never fly. we get enough "defund the cbc" bullshit here from right wing nutters thinking it's an arm of trudeau (but magically, it wasn't for harper). 

That's exactly what NPR and PBS are... federally funded news.  And the same shit from the right here on it. 

They are not the same as CBC. We fund our public broadcaster waaaay more. PBS and NPR get a pittance, not nearly enough to be competitive in the market. NPR has a donate link on their main webpage, and that's a damn shame. 


CBC's funding differs from that of the public broadcasters of many European nations, which collect a licence fee, or those in the United States, such as PBS and NPR, which receive some public funding but rely to a large extent on voluntary contributions from individual viewers and listeners. A Nanos Research poll from August 2014 conducted for Asper Media (National Post, Financial Post) showed 41% of Canadians wanted funding increased, 46% wanted it maintained at current levels, and only 10% wanted to see it cut.

PBS and npr, and others, are funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. CPB is a quasi-governmental agency that receives appropriations from Congress and then divies up the money. Guess which political party drastically cut its budget and wanted to defund it completely?

Yes absolutely. 

It's so sad...the GOP has convinced their chud that PBS is a liberal indoctrination channel.