Thanks to everyone who watched. There were loads of interesting details we didn’t quite have time to get into, but if you’re ever keen to learn more, you can find our sources linked here and in the description, alongside our Patreon (where we release podcast supplements exploring cut content) and Discord (where our friendly community is often chatting about the videos and other topics). Sources: www.spectacles.news/public-media-and-propaganda/ 👇 Corrections 👇 (none...yet)
Is it possible to discuss propaganda without reference to Operation Mockingbird? Especially now that the use of propaganda by the US governent has been re-legalised.
What a wonderful video! Just want to add that media do not have to tell lies in order for it to be propaganda: selective reporting of one side/type of the story in line with its ideological values is enough to sway the popular opinion. This is ever more prevalent (and alarming) in an AI-driven algorithmic world, where you don't get to dictate what you see anymore.
I'd like to also mention the adding an extra step like the CPB doesn't get rid of the bias problem: It merely adds a step. What's stopping someone from taking over the CPB and using its money to fund entities that suit their agenda?
I thought exactly that. In fact, it even provides the ability to dodge responsibility when obviously biased news stations funded by the CPB post biased articles.
Fair argument, but let's think about it this way, by putting that step in it makes the amount of effort required far greater because of the separation from public office.
This is amazing and should be watched by everyone in America. Understanding our news sources and what's behind the curtain of each of them is so important for having a healthier democracy.
This 2 minute video is one of the most devastating i have seen. Talk about a million words in a few pictures, on the state of US media: th-cam.com/video/ZggCipbiHwE/w-d-xo.html
Nice work fellas. Love the intention behind your overall project, the transparency of your source notes, citations and corrections, and the look of ur series. The explanation of NPR / CPB hybrid model was super clear with several insights I hadn’t considered I’m a fan of NPR myself and a supporter of the overall enterprise - but I think that those who are already deeply suspicious of government intrusion into the media environment - would see this model as differing from RT only superficially - that since following the money ultimately leads back to government (even with an intermediary) that would constrain the sorts of topics this entity could talk about. That overly critical coverage could end up getting its funding pulled (which has been threatened by politicians in the recent past). I imagine it’s super boring and dry - but if you found out a way to spell out explicitly the safeguards and “competitive and transparent” rules and regulations that would prevent NPR from becoming another RT if it was all of sudden granted a comparable budget - that might be fascinating to the nerdier viewer - and help assuage the worries of the more suspicious. If CPB is the gatekeeper of government funded media projects, how do they make their choices on which subsidiary partners they are granting funds to? But I know we're in a YT environment - and its nearly impossible to talk about details like this. I struggle with this problem constantly. Ultimately I worry about how in an environment this deeply distrustful one could ever muster broad support for more funding for public media. It seems like such an entity would need to be transparent about those above details in a way that's always easily digestible. And I agree with you - that with all the obvious weaknesses with the private model - innovation of some kind is sorely needed. Thank you again for all the good work and keep up the fight :)✊
@@robt864 all you’ll get back after saying something like that is the reactionary “muhh that’s tankie Putin/Russia propaganda nothing more nothing less etc etc” even though your statement is fundamentally true.
The problem that a significant majority of Western journalists and documentary creators suffer from in describing RT, Xinhua, and any other news outlet popularly labeled as state media is the fixation around their political reporting. If you open RT, there's a wealth of coverage there about topics and subjects not entirely related to their politics. So, the habit of throwing something under the bus because of a lack of the bandwidth to spend on a subject becomes a victim of dogmatism, which is synonymous with propaganda. The integrity of a journalist or documentary creator lays in their ability to double as an information research scientist.
I feel that you guys make really good well researched videos but often miss critical analysis which makes them feel generally good but I can’t help but feel that they could be much better with just a bit more material dialectical analysis. But generally really good work hope this crisis is taken to be constructive : )
Besides the question of independence, I oppose state-funded media. Media will be biased regardless of where the money comes from, and I rather want to decide what I finance independendly.
Interesting. I would rather have the opposite. A media which doesn't need to pander to it's audience. It might be funded by the state but if it is kept separate enough it will lead to great journalism and content.
The problem with mass media in general is that (1) journalism in the West is no longer a profession governed by a code of ethics (2) public education standards and literacy levels have plummeted so the viewing audience is getting progressively more ignorant as society becomes more polarised - the news is no longer about informing the public, it’s about entertainment, indignation and outrage (3) nowadays many major outlets do not distinguish between journalism and editorial / commentary and Rupert Murdoch’s garbage media empire is the single worst offender (eg Fox “News”, NY Post, Sky, etc)
I was watching election night coverage on PBS in 2020, and the person I was watching with said that she was annoyed that they were interviewing Republicans, even though the Republican guy was honestly being very reasonable in his responses.
Without knowing who actually funded (and even if they do, then its because of their own opinions that are against any kind of media that shows the deeds from their side they strongly support), they'd consider PBS as propaganda.... Hell, I have seen that type of comment on those who show praise to PBS on video articles that covers highly polarized issues, like they are targets.
No, PBS is another source of propaganda for the Democratic Party. Just one example is when Bernie Sanders took over the number one position in the 2020 primary, PBS did not mention it, but raved how important it was that Amy Klobuchar was in the number three position. Subtle but shows what they are all about.
1) due bbc represent the general public such as the British government? 2) do musk represent the same voice of the British government and good of British people? 3) how much do musk voice take reasonability of death from covid for people following his ideal of covid?
State media is state media, even if it has extras steps and goes through private media institutions from “unnamed sources” to create a desired sphere of informational influence.
I think state media is good because you can get a feel of what a government is trying to convey to the people. I think what is actually important and actually matters is having a diverse menu of options when it comes to news and media rather than trying to keep news organizations "honest" it also raises the question on who become the authority on truth what is preventing them from having an agenda or bias . All media organizations have a bias or agenda. I don't like how TH-cam banned RT just because its Russian state media. Even if you disagree with the Russian state on the war in Ukraine I wanna know what their position is on it and why. RT is there to communicate the Russian state position on current issues and its important to know that because you can't get it from anywhere else. Now everyone has a blind spot on what the Russians are trying to communicate to the world I don't think that's a good thing.
You argument at the end indeed had a valid point, as even if you really banned RT, all those contents would resurface back just in different ways, being populist/clickbait short videos, and on those some sketchy streaming sites. What really important, as you mentioned, is that the endless effort to reach “unbiasedness” would eventually led to further bias. As such, I think it’s actually somehow good for media just to present what they represent rather than only saying “I’m representing the truth/I’m covering all”
The problem with RT is that this isn't the case (anymore?). It is designed for influencing international audiences and disrupting other states. If you look at Russian domestic media it is much more useful. Even though some is rather silly, nearly comedic. A few years ago many experts looked at it for your mentioned reason, but this doesn't work anymore since the war has started. The target of RT right now is to undermine democracies and their support for Ukraine, not just putting the Russian government into a certain light. That's why it's a difficult question wether you should ban it or not. I can't really answer it. On the one side they are definitely not healthy for our system and banning them _does_ give them a bit less influence, but on the other side it promotes echo chambers and leads to people following it. Everyone has a bias and everyone can and most likely will fall for ridiculous stuff sometimes. This is abused by these outlets. Personally I think it would be better to let their content stay, but I see also why it can make sense to ban it.
@@otanakugaming3357 I cringe and immediately stop watching something if they are being praised by 50 morbillion people for being "unbiased," or the person talking calls themselves "unbiased." Im an anarcho-lefty Im biased as fuck and I want people to know that! It makes conversations more honest instead of some weird virtue signalling of "unbiased-ness" and "objectivity." My arguments and beliefs are influenced by my life and even the way I interpret words or ideas is biased, I am human. Also because if this sort of thing isnt said then the conversations become a schlong measuring contest about who is truly the most unbiased in an attempt to fulfill some weird cult of rationalization/logic. I have less of a problem with an outright racist than someone who tries to go "b-but muh statistics and uh my unbias they are just violent and uh yea!!!!!!! Its racial science my dude!" Same for news organizations, governments, etc. In other words, a hate for contradiction and hypocrisy.
@@LoregamorlI get ur point but the point of the news is to pass on information to the general public. The more biased a news agencies are the more the information they are passing on is distorted. You should be able to get the correct information and come to ur own conclusion instead of someone telling u what ur conclusion should be.
RT is more than state media. When TH-cam shut down RT they also cut off sources like Chris Hedges and Abby Martin of Empire Files, and all their data was lost. It was pure censorship and that’s poison to a free press.
The moment you qouted RWB's Press Freedom Index, i just stopped the video. Qouting a methodologically poor report is a joke. For example - it rates Afghanistan and Pakistan's Press Freedom as higher than India's!! Joke of the Century.
The absolute irony of this comment complaining about the subjective nature of sources used in a video explaining how to avoid the subjective nature of sources. Like, he used the source to simply point out Russia and China is in a red category, not even a specific ranking, so unless you think they have free press I don’t see how you can’t acknowledge biases and move on.
The twin pillars of media in a democratic system is entertainment and influence. Be it public or private there is no escape from theis paradigm. The short format does little to educate it's audience but casts a long shadow on its listener's decision making long after its entertainment value has worn off, however it is the entertainment value that draw in the viewers.
A blended public / private model still depends on having a high quality government and other institutions. That is, ones not riddled with corruption that aggressively target truth telling. In the US, we have lost those. So even if your conclusion about which is the better model is entirely correct, it is a moot point because what you favor would be very large. Any large media entity that sought to provide genuine journalism would be a relentless target of powerful malign forces that would stop at nothing to capture it for their own use - or have it destroyed.
5:37 The assertion you make is 'Norway's trust in public media indicates a lack of corruption'. This is a causal argument which is unsupported from your source work. You can say the high levels of corruption might erode public trust in media, but that does not make the reverse true. If the British trust of BBC increases, that does not mean that the level of corruption has decreased.
No, we mentioned earlier that NRK is very squeaky clean operationally. Those two things are separate. Trust follows from lack of corruption. Our argument is that lack of corruption follows from healthy government.
@@spectacles-dm You mentioned it, but where is your source? Who did the audit of NRK? Similar to taxes, a lack of evidence for tax fraud does not mean fraud did not happen, you must confirm the absence of fraud. While it is correct that lack of corruption being a factor in public trust of a government, you would also need to control for other factors that influence trust such as transparency, polarization, perception of competence in order to know what effect was due to corruption. I don't even think you are wrong in this case with the BBC, but where is the source? The foundational argument that 'A lack of corruption follows from health government' is circular. A lack of corruption is a condition of a healthy government, not a result of healthy government. Perhaps we are working off of different definitions of 'healthy government'.
@@spectacles-dm Haha I love that I get to use the favorite (and generally completely incorrectly used) critique leftys use: Correlation does not imply causation. You can posit all day long the assertion a "lack of corruption follows from healthy government", but until you prove A causes B it means nothing.
But even then, that's been wiped from their memory (they forgot) or they had been believed otherwise, to the point they may disregard it. (and that may apply to previous broadcasting histories on previous modern conflicts)
I don’t watch my country’s TV news anymore. I watch online videos now be they compressing their stories into a 10 minute video every couple days. Informed but not boarded
To all the Canadians: The CBC has followed the CPB model since the 90s after Mulroney unsuccessfully tried to privatize it, if you watch Rosemary Barton, she's critical of EVERYONE and 22 Minutes is quite possibly the only good sketch comedy show left.
Bruh the point of news media being unbiased is to make sure the correct information is being delivered to the public so ppl can come to their own conclusions. All I see is ppl arguing about yo this media isn’t unbiased, yo this media is garbage. No media is unbiased cause some person have to write the fucking article. They will have their own beliefs and external pressures that influence the article that comes out. The best way to get the most accurate information is to look at multiple different outlets on both sides of the issue so u can come to ur own conclusion without being influenced by other’s opinions
I don't prefer public broadcasters but everyone should agree PBS and BBC are better than Fox and RT. I think the ideal Musk is trying to put forward is that you can choose your sources rather than choosing the default (Fox) or having them dictated to you (RT).
@@op7519 There's different types of content on the same outlet. Opinion content is among the most dubious, and the opinions vary significantly between outlets. I suppose speculation is another type of opinion, and boy do they love speculation.
Nope, not at all. Does Fox have its problems? Yes, it does. However, PBS better? Not at all. At least Fox is honest about its ideological bias, PBS has fully drunken the Woke Cool-Aid and actually thinks it is neutral.
They also were in essence bought out by leftist "philanthropist" George Soros and had to write an entire article about how "he definately doesn't control what we write guys c'mon" Then just this year Soros bought out dozens of nominally conservative radio stations that multiple watchdog groups said shouldn't have been allowed by the FCC but were, because we definitely aren't an empire in decline due to invasive leftwing psychopathics who have invested every major industry, court, and beurocratic system...
With increasing intervention from govt in economy after 1929 economic crisis money is not the only currency out there Authority is also currency giving tax break, subsidies, secreet service black mail, promoting policy that benefit you or bad for your competitor, administrative order , and last but not least for media exclusive content for the news Wich with the current state of traditional media downturn is something you cant reject
Media biases also depend alot on which journalists work at a particular media Group, journalists in Asia would paint a bad picture of West, while Western outlets will highlight certain issues and leave others, will make a mountain out of a molehill while ignoring problems in their own countries
I'm not a Elon Musk Fanboy, and I disagree with a lot of his beliefs. However, to claim he is product of the Dunning-Kruger effects is an ironically biased and immature view. The guy is massively intelligent and has become a self-made billionaire, which is nearly impossible for an ignorant person. The only people that seem to hate him are far right conspiracy nuts who think he is going to microchip everyone, or left-wing radicals who consume democrat propaganda and have a problem with him speaking out against the woke, marxists\ ideology which peaked in 2018. Ironically, the type of people who think everything is a conspiracy and they've figured it all out, or the privileged socialist kids who think watching TYT, CNN or other inane drivel make them educated in sociopolitical matters, or actually believe there is some truth in being told Elon is a "puppet for Putin" or "far right" are the real epitome of the "Dunning Kruger" effect. Generally all under the age of 30, generally complain about partisanship while exclusively only consuming left or right wing content exclusively, and generally all look up to other pseudo intellectuals like Sam Harris. The Dunning Kruger effect generally describes middle to upper-class privileged young adults who lived relatively easier lives, go to university paid entirely or in part by their parents and believe they are intellectuals because they read a book or two and developed an interest in politics when it became part of pop culture in the last decade. These people are usually very confident in their ideas, and actually believe that people who fundamentally disagree with them on topics of politics, religion, or other charged topics must be stupid, brainwashed or evil. These are the people whom couldn't figure out how to change a tire on the highway or do their own taxes. They are the type of people to think Trump is a racist (if leftist) or believe in Qanon (if right wing). They're complete lack of wisdom and big-picture thinking is only surpassed by their own confidence in their own ideas and worldview. I get the impression you might be one of these people.
I'd like to know how Elon Musk thinks the BBC should have handled the misinformation they reported about vaccines and masks, and what Twitter is doing about misinformation on vaccines and masks that is posted on Twitter. Which does he think was more damaging?
@@spectacles-dm Well if they decide to start funding online video, I hope you get enough of it. You're the only liberal video essayist I've watched who is able to communicate complex political topics in a digestible manner for people who aren't that politically knowledgeable.
Where is CSPAN in all this?? They are getting absolutely pathetic. Three channels. You see what they want you to see. I saw a wonderful committee session in the wee hours of the morning. It was lead by a young republican and his side kick was a young female democrat. They actually got things done, agreed with one another. Chatted it up with the entire room afterwards. Kept looking for it bc I thought it would be very popular and they repeat some things over and over. My main concern / issue is their morning show. The good old voter call-in on Washington Journal. Every great once in a while a good Republican or just a conservative will be on. The host almost always is bias and short with them. Not horrible but noticeable. They have three lines to call in on, Dem, Rep, and Indp. Dem is always the first number for example 1-800-***_2000, 2001 for R, 2003 for Ind. Occasionally they list R on top but not unless they’re called out on it by a viewer. The first call taken is D who are free to speak, bash and lie about Trump through the entire broadcast. The beginning is always a subject of the day. The D calls are a lot of black people and east coast callers (this may be due to the early morning hour). The R callers are almost always have the hick voices. The host badgers R callers and hangs up on them far more than D’s. Half the time the producer or whoever does the disconnecting. There also seems to be connection issues when a R calls with valid information. The host reads excerpts of articles written in known publications, yes of course Left publications. Rarely an unbiased source much less conservative. I can not express enough how disheartening it is to listen to the black callers literally yelling and screaming about white supremacy, racism, Trump and conservatives. They do not understand how much they are exploited by the Left. The two main culprits are CNN and MSNBC. It is so obvious. In fact not one MSM has redacted their almost decade long spewing of Russia Gate. I don’t understand how these so called journalists can sleep at night. They are doing their job. The job is to keep Americans tensions and propaganda at high levels. D’s say all the time the economy is great and Biden is doing a great job, especially considering he inherited a mess. Wow. Suckers or liars. Prob both.
Calling the cpb objective is completely inaccurate. Maybe on paper this all adds up, but the reality is leadership bias mixed with holding the purse strings for reporting agencies means starving out viewpoints with which they don’t agree. Anyone who takes what they see and hear at face value isn’t asking themselves any questions.
What's needed is something completely divorced from government AND markets, with no profit motive and controlled by people who are ideologically dedicated to the truth. Of course, that will be less popular than yellow journalism and the people running it need to be trustworthy.
Just go watch some videos about the Spanish Civil War and the French Revolution. It's all the same patterns and the same political "side" causing all the problems for the last 200 years...
You gotta have good honest journalists or none of these things matter. I seem to only be able to find that anymore on smaller platforms and even that takes a while to sift through. I usually find myself wondering what to believe these days and only know things are going off the rails and corruption flows like a river through both sides of the political divide in the United States and other parts of the western world. It’s a bit more straightforward in the nations lead by our favorite tyrants. What you hear is exactly what you are supposed to hear and that in turn will help reinforce that important prop that’s always holding up dictators and despots.
That's correct! Weirdly enough their healthcare system also shares some aspects with the Affordable Care Act's insurance exchanges, another example of a more public-private model. Although in both cases the government plays a larger role. Thanks for watching!
While the Corp for Public Broadcasting funds a lot of small local stations, we don’t know anything at all about the quality of them, or to what extent they’re actually performing useful services. - And while they only provide 5% of NPR’s funding, they’re a poor example of unbiased journalism. Once upon a time, they did quality reporting, with a minor center-left bias. Lately they’ve devolved into a mouthpiece for the Democrat party and uncritical spreader of government propaganda. I unfortunately know of no reliable news sources on conventional broadcast media, although I’m sure there must be some good local stations somewhere. These days the few truly principled and unbiased journalists covering national or global issues can only be found online :-/
Any proof of NPR being a Democrat mouthpiece or is it just you speaking your brain ? Which unbiased journalists from the web are you talking about ? It doesn't exist. Reporting something over something else is already proof of a certain bias. The journalism work is to explain why you feel that this event is more important than the rest; the objectivity is in argumenting all sides of this event.
Instead of just simply dunking on Elon, you instead pivot towards a wonderful explanation of how public funding of media works in a few different systems. The difference of where that money comes from, and how the source isn't the full story. It depends on what kind of government is funding it and what their intentions are. In Russia for example it is almost exclusively Putin's propaganda. In comparison in the US or the UK there are some levels of separation and better intentions with the money. This is primarily because of the democratic institutions in place. A wonderful video as usual! These videos really help remind me that despite issues with our democratic systems at time(s), it is much better than the authoritarian systems we see in too many other places across the world. It rekindles a genuine love for democracy, despite it flaws.
My favorite Elon moves were trashing social media while buying twitter, and trashing AI while he was building his own. His two biggest targets were of course Facebook and ChatGPT. Which of course are his biggest competitors. All the stans are into it either way. Because Elon is right, until he flips completely, and then he's also right. There's a pattern here, and Elon is playing them all and the media too.
Such a dumb take. He realized Twitter was acting as the arbiter of truth when it comes to censorship while doing so in an extremely biased way. He bought it to fix that. He’s losing money on Twitter, it’s not scheme to get richer for him. Brainwashed people like you believe everything the media says about him because you lack critical thinking skills. And this is coming from someone who doesn’t particularly care for the guy
Sure, the hybrid model of the CPB is a nice idea, but let's not kid ourselves; Anyone who listens to NPR for even 10 minutes will notice a distinct and overwhelming partisan bent. Is it RT bad or even CNN bad? Of course not. But let's not pretend that NPR, a taxpayer funded organization that you and I pay for btw, is the paragon of pure and unbiased reporting you present it as. I would argue that something like Reuters is a far better model - an independent nonprofit entity which adheres to ironclad guidelines of journalistic integrity, and sticks to a simple, objective style of reporting.
Fair points, but NPR's bias isn't explained by its funding model (whereas the BBC's recent problems, for example, can be). Instead, NPR's bias is probably more related to America's general education polarization, with more educated people in majors like journalism being disproportionately liberal, and then filling out the ranks of an institution like NPR. This is a much more complicated issue and a harder one to address. The key point is that, by all accounts, no real pressure is exerted (or feasibly could be) on NPR by the government, thanks to the CPB. Simultaneously, it's free from the pressures of advertising and corporate interests. This doesn't mean any media outfit that fits those criteria will be unbiased...only that it is a better formula for more reliable content than anything else. Edit: even Reuters has had run-ins with corruption on behalf of the British in their international bureaus, but Reuters is indeed a great outfit!
Media is tainted and can't be fixed. My strategy is to alternate between bl consuming both sources (Fox News vs the mainstream liberal media). Its interesting what key facts each side leaves out when telling stories.
You miss 80% of information doing that, Fox plays at supporting "conservative" issues but regularly blurts out "liberal" stuff and has been pro-actively anti-Trump alongside senoir GOP officials despite his public popularity for that "side" of the political isle
Great work. Finally a channel I can show my students without brainwashing them with political, corporate and ideological activism. I would never show them BBC news, DW or Fox content. Its riddled with insultingly poorly crafted corruption and bias.
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks to everyone who watched. There were loads of interesting details we didn’t quite have time to get into, but if you’re ever keen to learn more, you can find our sources linked here and in the description, alongside our Patreon (where we release podcast supplements exploring cut content) and Discord (where our friendly community is often chatting about the videos and other topics).
Sources: www.spectacles.news/public-media-and-propaganda/
👇 Corrections 👇
(none...yet)
You are also propaganda.
@@scaramouche8244 That word does not mean what you seem to think it means.
Is it possible to discuss propaganda without reference to Operation Mockingbird? Especially now that the use of propaganda by the US governent has been re-legalised.
What a wonderful video! Just want to add that media do not have to tell lies in order for it to be propaganda: selective reporting of one side/type of the story in line with its ideological values is enough to sway the popular opinion. This is ever more prevalent (and alarming) in an AI-driven algorithmic world, where you don't get to dictate what you see anymore.
True
People also need to see the difference of journalism and opinion makers, the latter is becoming a problem lately.
I'd like to also mention the adding an extra step like the CPB doesn't get rid of the bias problem: It merely adds a step.
What's stopping someone from taking over the CPB and using its money to fund entities that suit their agenda?
I thought exactly that. In fact, it even provides the ability to dodge responsibility when obviously biased news stations funded by the CPB post biased articles.
Fair argument, but let's think about it this way, by putting that step in it makes the amount of effort required far greater because of the separation from public office.
Especially with Trump’s plans
I'm surprised you didn't mention the German public broadcasting
This is amazing and should be watched by everyone in America. Understanding our news sources and what's behind the curtain of each of them is so important for having a healthier democracy.
This 2 minute video is one of the most devastating i have seen. Talk about a million words in a few pictures, on the state of US media: th-cam.com/video/ZggCipbiHwE/w-d-xo.html
We don't live in a democracy but a kleptocracy lmfao
This is also
propaganda
Yeah, we really need media literacy here.
@@singular9They're not mutually exclusive designations.
You keep producing amazing content, rapidly becoming one of my favorite edutainment channels out there
I won't have ever thought of any of this. Thank you for bringing such great detailed videos
Nice work fellas. Love the intention behind your overall project, the transparency of your source notes, citations and corrections, and the look of ur series. The explanation of NPR / CPB hybrid model was super clear with several insights I hadn’t considered
I’m a fan of NPR myself and a supporter of the overall enterprise - but I think that those who are already deeply suspicious of government intrusion into the media environment - would see this model as differing from RT only superficially - that since following the money ultimately leads back to government (even with an intermediary) that would constrain the sorts of topics this entity could talk about. That overly critical coverage could end up getting its funding pulled (which has been threatened by politicians in the recent past).
I imagine it’s super boring and dry - but if you found out a way to spell out explicitly the safeguards and “competitive and transparent” rules and regulations that would prevent NPR from becoming another RT if it was all of sudden granted a comparable budget - that might be fascinating to the nerdier viewer - and help assuage the worries of the more suspicious. If CPB is the gatekeeper of government funded media projects, how do they make their choices on which subsidiary partners they are granting funds to? But I know we're in a YT environment - and its nearly impossible to talk about details like this. I struggle with this problem constantly.
Ultimately I worry about how in an environment this deeply distrustful one could ever muster broad support for more funding for public media. It seems like such an entity would need to be transparent about those above details in a way that's always easily digestible. And I agree with you - that with all the obvious weaknesses with the private model - innovation of some kind is sorely needed. Thank you again for all the good work and keep up the fight :)✊
have you ever actually watched RT? They are far more accurate in their reporting on the US than NPR is from what I've seen
@@robt864 all you’ll get back after saying something like that is the reactionary “muhh that’s tankie Putin/Russia propaganda nothing more nothing less etc etc” even though your statement is fundamentally true.
The problem that a significant majority of Western journalists and documentary creators suffer from in describing RT, Xinhua, and any other news outlet popularly labeled as state media is the fixation around their political reporting. If you open RT, there's a wealth of coverage there about topics and subjects not entirely related to their politics. So, the habit of throwing something under the bus because of a lack of the bandwidth to spend on a subject becomes a victim of dogmatism, which is synonymous with propaganda.
The integrity of a journalist or documentary creator lays in their ability to double as an information research scientist.
I feel that you guys make really good well researched videos but often miss critical analysis which makes them feel generally good but I can’t help but feel that they could be much better with just a bit more material dialectical analysis. But generally really good work hope this crisis is taken to be constructive : )
I just took lunch so I could watch this
Legend! Thanks mate
Besides the question of independence, I oppose state-funded media. Media will be biased regardless of where the money comes from, and I rather want to decide what I finance independendly.
Interesting. I would rather have the opposite. A media which doesn't need to pander to it's audience. It might be funded by the state but if it is kept separate enough it will lead to great journalism and content.
You guys are crimminally underrated
Thanks so much! And thanks for being a patron!! ❤️
@spectacles-dm you guys are the first channel I have ever supported because your mission is so so important. Keep up the good work!
@@kenzou776 do you know any similar channels
The problem with mass media in general is that (1) journalism in the West is no longer a profession governed by a code of ethics (2) public education standards and literacy levels have plummeted so the viewing audience is getting progressively more ignorant as society becomes more polarised - the news is no longer about informing the public, it’s about entertainment, indignation and outrage (3) nowadays many major outlets do not distinguish between journalism and editorial / commentary and Rupert Murdoch’s garbage media empire is the single worst offender (eg Fox “News”, NY Post, Sky, etc)
They are all the same garbage. If you think Fox/NY Post is different from CNN/NYT you have been groomed to one side or the other.
PBS is pretty good, sadly not many Americans watch it.
I was watching election night coverage on PBS in 2020, and the person I was watching with said that she was annoyed that they were interviewing Republicans, even though the Republican guy was honestly being very reasonable in his responses.
Without knowing who actually funded (and even if they do, then its because of their own opinions that are against any kind of media that shows the deeds from their side they strongly support), they'd consider PBS as propaganda.... Hell, I have seen that type of comment on those who show praise to PBS on video articles that covers highly polarized issues, like they are targets.
No, PBS is another source of propaganda for the Democratic Party. Just one example is when Bernie Sanders took over the number one position in the 2020 primary, PBS did not mention it, but raved how important it was that Amy Klobuchar was in the number three position. Subtle but shows what they are all about.
Its not great, it has its own bias.
I am suprised you didn't talk about DW.
Scandinavian Public Broadcasters are honestly a great example of best media broadcasters around.
Lol. They support PKK terrorist groups.
I certainly have never gotten bad or biased infor out of DR
the ABC in australia is generally pretty good as well
Not to mention their on-air designs are so sleek and Nordic!
It may seem that way but they're biased like everyone else
The best media clearly is 4chan.
1) due bbc represent the general public such as the British government? 2) do musk represent the same voice of the British government and good of British people? 3) how much do musk voice take reasonability of death from covid for people following his ideal of covid?
Fun fact: The best funded Public broadcaster is actually the German one.
yeah they recently increased the taxes again 😣
DW is pretty fucking good tho
love DW simple as
@@Jonas_M_M no, best funded
@@abelzatyko1513 yep amazing reporting on who did nord stream
State media is state media, even if it has extras steps and goes through private media institutions from “unnamed sources” to create a desired sphere of informational influence.
I think state media is good because you can get a feel of what a government is trying to convey to the people. I think what is actually important and actually matters is having a diverse menu of options when it comes to news and media rather than trying to keep news organizations "honest" it also raises the question on who become the authority on truth what is preventing them from having an agenda or bias . All media organizations have a bias or agenda.
I don't like how TH-cam banned RT just because its Russian state media. Even if you disagree with the Russian state on the war in Ukraine I wanna know what their position is on it and why. RT is there to communicate the Russian state position on current issues and its important to know that because you can't get it from anywhere else. Now everyone has a blind spot on what the Russians are trying to communicate to the world I don't think that's a good thing.
You argument at the end indeed had a valid point, as even if you really banned RT, all those contents would resurface back just in different ways, being populist/clickbait short videos, and on those some sketchy streaming sites.
What really important, as you mentioned, is that the endless effort to reach “unbiasedness” would eventually led to further bias. As such, I think it’s actually somehow good for media just to present what they represent rather than only saying “I’m representing the truth/I’m covering all”
The problem with RT is that this isn't the case (anymore?).
It is designed for influencing international audiences and disrupting other states.
If you look at Russian domestic media it is much more useful. Even though some is rather silly, nearly comedic.
A few years ago many experts looked at it for your mentioned reason, but this doesn't work anymore since the war has started.
The target of RT right now is to undermine democracies and their support for Ukraine, not just putting the Russian government into a certain light.
That's why it's a difficult question wether you should ban it or not. I can't really answer it.
On the one side they are definitely not healthy for our system and banning them _does_ give them a bit less influence, but on the other side it promotes echo chambers and leads to people following it.
Everyone has a bias and everyone can and most likely will fall for ridiculous stuff sometimes. This is abused by these outlets.
Personally I think it would be better to let their content stay, but I see also why it can make sense to ban it.
@@otanakugaming3357 I cringe and immediately stop watching something if they are being praised by 50 morbillion people for being "unbiased," or the person talking calls themselves "unbiased."
Im an anarcho-lefty Im biased as fuck and I want people to know that! It makes conversations more honest instead of some weird virtue signalling of "unbiased-ness" and "objectivity." My arguments and beliefs are influenced by my life and even the way I interpret words or ideas is biased, I am human. Also because if this sort of thing isnt said then the conversations become a schlong measuring contest about who is truly the most unbiased in an attempt to fulfill some weird cult of rationalization/logic.
I have less of a problem with an outright racist than someone who tries to go "b-but muh statistics and uh my unbias they are just violent and uh yea!!!!!!! Its racial science my dude!" Same for news organizations, governments, etc.
In other words, a hate for contradiction and hypocrisy.
@@LoregamorlI get ur point but the point of the news is to pass on information to the general public. The more biased a news agencies are the more the information they are passing on is distorted. You should be able to get the correct information and come to ur own conclusion instead of someone telling u what ur conclusion should be.
RT is more than state media. When TH-cam shut down RT they also cut off sources like Chris Hedges and Abby Martin of Empire Files, and all their data was lost. It was pure censorship and that’s poison to a free press.
The moment you qouted RWB's Press Freedom Index, i just stopped the video. Qouting a methodologically poor report is a joke. For example - it rates Afghanistan and Pakistan's Press Freedom as higher than India's!! Joke of the Century.
The absolute irony of this comment complaining about the subjective nature of sources used in a video explaining how to avoid the subjective nature of sources.
Like, he used the source to simply point out Russia and China is in a red category, not even a specific ranking, so unless you think they have free press I don’t see how you can’t acknowledge biases and move on.
The twin pillars of media in a democratic system is entertainment and influence. Be it public or private there is no escape from theis paradigm. The short format does little to educate it's audience but casts a long shadow on its listener's decision making long after its entertainment value has worn off, however it is the entertainment value that draw in the viewers.
A blended public / private model still depends on having a high quality government and other institutions. That is, ones not riddled with corruption that aggressively target truth telling. In the US, we have lost those. So even if your conclusion about which is the better model is entirely correct, it is a moot point because what you favor would be very large. Any large media entity that sought to provide genuine journalism would be a relentless target of powerful malign forces that would stop at nothing to capture it for their own use - or have it destroyed.
5:37 The assertion you make is 'Norway's trust in public media indicates a lack of corruption'. This is a causal argument which is unsupported from your source work. You can say the high levels of corruption might erode public trust in media, but that does not make the reverse true. If the British trust of BBC increases, that does not mean that the level of corruption has decreased.
No, we mentioned earlier that NRK is very squeaky clean operationally. Those two things are separate. Trust follows from lack of corruption. Our argument is that lack of corruption follows from healthy government.
@@spectacles-dm You mentioned it, but where is your source? Who did the audit of NRK? Similar to taxes, a lack of evidence for tax fraud does not mean fraud did not happen, you must confirm the absence of fraud.
While it is correct that lack of corruption being a factor in public trust of a government, you would also need to control for other factors that influence trust such as transparency, polarization, perception of competence in order to know what effect was due to corruption. I don't even think you are wrong in this case with the BBC, but where is the source?
The foundational argument that 'A lack of corruption follows from health government' is circular. A lack of corruption is a condition of a healthy government, not a result of healthy government. Perhaps we are working off of different definitions of 'healthy government'.
@@spectacles-dm Haha I love that I get to use the favorite (and generally completely incorrectly used) critique leftys use: Correlation does not imply causation. You can posit all day long the assertion a "lack of corruption follows from healthy government", but until you prove A causes B it means nothing.
Bbc did report side effects of vaccinations. I remember watching it.
But even then, that's been wiped from their memory (they forgot) or they had been believed otherwise, to the point they may disregard it.
(and that may apply to previous broadcasting histories on previous modern conflicts)
Another crusher! You guys never a waste second & your editing is somehow more immaculate each time. Can’t wait for y’all to blow up like you deserve
I was really expecting a ground news sponsorship somewhere in here
CNN "brought to you by Phizer"
Imagine thinking that Western private and government news outlets aren't extremely biased.
oh wait ur right
Yep. A full week before they reported on the Chinese brokered iran and Saudi peace deal😂 they had to get their briefing
It’s the worst offender in the world by a long shot, but that left right paradigm is quite strong.
@@cjthebeesknees It's the worst offender...
dude wat? have you ever seen russian, north korean, chinese or iran media?
@@madtechnocrat9234 please take the boot out of your mouth before speaking next time.
just one question man, why the hell are you so underrated??
One intentionally misleads most of the time, and the other only intentionally misleads some of the time.
This channel keeps producing W videos with the highest quality and nuanced detail to political science. Great job 👏
I don’t watch my country’s TV news anymore. I watch online videos now be they compressing their stories into a 10 minute video every couple days. Informed but not boarded
Very good video. The quality is amazing
To all the Canadians:
The CBC has followed the CPB model since the 90s after Mulroney unsuccessfully tried to privatize it, if you watch Rosemary Barton, she's critical of EVERYONE and 22 Minutes is quite possibly the only good sketch comedy show left.
I think you should name this "Statist Media Vs Corporate Media", because I think it would generate a lot more clicks.
Bruh the point of news media being unbiased is to make sure the correct information is being delivered to the public so ppl can come to their own conclusions. All I see is ppl arguing about yo this media isn’t unbiased, yo this media is garbage. No media is unbiased cause some person have to write the fucking article. They will have their own beliefs and external pressures that influence the article that comes out. The best way to get the most accurate information is to look at multiple different outlets on both sides of the issue so u can come to ur own conclusion without being influenced by other’s opinions
I don't prefer public broadcasters but everyone should agree PBS and BBC are better than Fox and RT. I think the ideal Musk is trying to put forward is that you can choose your sources rather than choosing the default (Fox) or having them dictated to you (RT).
have you at least tryed to read these? a good 70% of the news are kinda identical one to another (yeah, as well RT)
@@op7519 There's different types of content on the same outlet. Opinion content is among the most dubious, and the opinions vary significantly between outlets. I suppose speculation is another type of opinion, and boy do they love speculation.
Nope, not at all. Does Fox have its problems? Yes, it does. However, PBS better? Not at all. At least Fox is honest about its ideological bias, PBS has fully drunken the Woke Cool-Aid and actually thinks it is neutral.
Great video, you need more views
Great video, shocked you didn’t mention Al Jazeera
not to mention SUPER PACS 😅
Imagine thinking that NPR "the outlet that says that trans and dinosaurs are related" is a neutral and a good model to be followed in journalism
They also were in essence bought out by leftist "philanthropist" George Soros and had to write an entire article about how "he definately doesn't control what we write guys c'mon"
Then just this year Soros bought out dozens of nominally conservative radio stations that multiple watchdog groups said shouldn't have been allowed by the FCC but were, because we definitely aren't an empire in decline due to invasive leftwing psychopathics who have invested every major industry, court, and beurocratic system...
With increasing intervention from govt in economy after 1929 economic crisis money is not the only currency out there
Authority is also currency
giving tax break, subsidies, secreet service black mail, promoting policy that benefit you or bad for your competitor, administrative order , and last but not least for media exclusive content for the news
Wich with the current state of traditional media downturn is something you cant reject
Well, PBS is branching out towards online programming that is informative and appealing for a wide public.
They do have a TH-cam channel.
Media biases also depend alot on which journalists work at a particular media Group, journalists in Asia would paint a bad picture of West, while Western outlets will highlight certain issues and leave others, will make a mountain out of a molehill while ignoring problems in their own countries
Elon Musk is the Dunning-Kruger principle incarnate.
I'm not a Elon Musk Fanboy, and I disagree with a lot of his beliefs. However, to claim he is product of the Dunning-Kruger effects is an ironically biased and immature view. The guy is massively intelligent and has become a self-made billionaire, which is nearly impossible for an ignorant person. The only people that seem to hate him are far right conspiracy nuts who think he is going to microchip everyone, or left-wing radicals who consume democrat propaganda and have a problem with him speaking out against the woke, marxists\ ideology which peaked in 2018. Ironically, the type of people who think everything is a conspiracy and they've figured it all out, or the privileged socialist kids who think watching TYT, CNN or other inane drivel make them educated in sociopolitical matters, or actually believe there is some truth in being told Elon is a "puppet for Putin" or "far right" are the real epitome of the "Dunning Kruger" effect. Generally all under the age of 30, generally complain about partisanship while exclusively only consuming left or right wing content exclusively, and generally all look up to other pseudo intellectuals like Sam Harris.
The Dunning Kruger effect generally describes middle to upper-class privileged young adults who lived relatively easier lives, go to university paid entirely or in part by their parents and believe they are intellectuals because they read a book or two and developed an interest in politics when it became part of pop culture in the last decade. These people are usually very confident in their ideas, and actually believe that people who fundamentally disagree with them on topics of politics, religion, or other charged topics must be stupid, brainwashed or evil. These are the people whom couldn't figure out how to change a tire on the highway or do their own taxes. They are the type of people to think Trump is a racist (if leftist) or believe in Qanon (if right wing). They're complete lack of wisdom and big-picture thinking is only surpassed by their own confidence in their own ideas and worldview. I get the impression you might be one of these people.
Whoa Adam Ragusea call out was unexpected, nice!
I always knew CPB had no masters
Elon musk will be in control of “govt efficiency” in T’s presidency. I shudder to think. VOTE PEOPLE!!
Should've done a sponsorship with Ground News XD
that would be a bit easier.
I'd like to know how Elon Musk thinks the BBC should have handled the misinformation they reported about vaccines and masks, and what Twitter is doing about misinformation on vaccines and masks that is posted on Twitter. Which does he think was more damaging?
No comments?
😂 I can see the anti semitism coming
If it appeals to emotions, sounds “angry” and/or is calling the viewer/listener to take action that favors one side, it IS propaganda
11:28 “Or perhaps…online video.”
Spectacles, are you trying to get CPB funding?
pfffft .... no! we're.... yeah, we're rolling in it. no money needed here!
@@spectacles-dm Well if they decide to start funding online video, I hope you get enough of it.
You're the only liberal video essayist I've watched who is able to communicate complex political topics in a digestible manner for people who aren't that politically knowledgeable.
aw shucks thanks so much - we really appreciate that
US did have the fairness doctrine that limited media power
Where is CSPAN in all this?? They are getting absolutely pathetic. Three channels. You see what they want you to see. I saw a wonderful committee session in the wee hours of the morning. It was lead by a young republican and his side kick was a young female democrat. They actually got things done, agreed with one another. Chatted it up with the entire room afterwards. Kept looking for it bc I thought it would be very popular and they repeat some things over and over.
My main concern / issue is their morning show. The good old voter call-in on Washington Journal. Every great once in a while a good Republican or just a conservative will be on. The host almost always is bias and short with them. Not horrible but noticeable. They have three lines to call in on, Dem, Rep, and Indp. Dem is always the first number for example 1-800-***_2000, 2001 for R, 2003 for Ind. Occasionally they list R on top but not unless they’re called out on it by a viewer. The first call taken is D who are free to speak, bash and lie about Trump through the entire broadcast. The beginning is always a subject of the day. The D calls are a lot of black people and east coast callers (this may be due to the early morning hour). The R callers are almost always have the hick voices. The host badgers R callers and hangs up on them far more than D’s. Half the time the producer or whoever does the disconnecting. There also seems to be connection issues when a R calls with valid information. The host reads excerpts of articles written in known publications, yes of course Left publications. Rarely an unbiased source much less conservative.
I can not express enough how disheartening it is to listen to the black callers literally yelling and screaming about white supremacy, racism, Trump and conservatives. They do not understand how much they are exploited by the Left. The two main culprits are CNN and MSNBC. It is so obvious. In fact not one MSM has redacted their almost decade long spewing of Russia Gate. I don’t understand how these so called journalists can sleep at night. They are doing their job. The job is to keep Americans tensions and propaganda at high levels. D’s say all the time the economy is great and Biden is doing a great job, especially considering he inherited a mess. Wow. Suckers or liars. Prob both.
Sounds like an add for cpb 😂
A great takeaway about how to do public media
Calling the cpb objective is completely inaccurate. Maybe on paper this all adds up, but the reality is leadership bias mixed with holding the purse strings for reporting agencies means starving out viewpoints with which they don’t agree. Anyone who takes what they see and hear at face value isn’t asking themselves any questions.
What's needed is something completely divorced from government AND markets, with no profit motive and controlled by people who are ideologically dedicated to the truth. Of course, that will be less popular than yellow journalism and the people running it need to be trustworthy.
Is it just me or does anybody else felling that something really bad is hanging in the air and we are just waiting for the spark?
In the time of uncertainty, any event like this could be a spark considering how propaganda and information wars goes on and on.
Just go watch some videos about the Spanish Civil War and the French Revolution. It's all the same patterns and the same political "side" causing all the problems for the last 200 years...
I wonder how many more rooms of ppl on cpu are created each year to monitor TH-cam content; unless AI ....u know
You gotta have good honest journalists or none of these things matter. I seem to only be able to find that anymore on smaller platforms and even that takes a while to sift through.
I usually find myself wondering what to believe these days and only know things are going off the rails and corruption flows like a river through both sides of the political divide in the United States and other parts of the western world. It’s a bit more straightforward in the nations lead by our favorite tyrants. What you hear is exactly what you are supposed to hear and that in turn will help reinforce that important prop that’s always holding up dictators and despots.
Afaik Dutch public media is also funded through a system like CPB
That's correct! Weirdly enough their healthcare system also shares some aspects with the Affordable Care Act's insurance exchanges, another example of a more public-private model. Although in both cases the government plays a larger role. Thanks for watching!
That you don't mention Walter Lippmann in this video is a big miss.
While the Corp for Public Broadcasting funds a lot of small local stations, we don’t know anything at all about the quality of them, or to what extent they’re actually performing useful services. - And while they only provide 5% of NPR’s funding, they’re a poor example of unbiased journalism. Once upon a time, they did quality reporting, with a minor center-left bias. Lately they’ve devolved into a mouthpiece for the Democrat party and uncritical spreader of government propaganda.
I unfortunately know of no reliable news sources on conventional broadcast media, although I’m sure there must be some good local stations somewhere. These days the few truly principled and unbiased journalists covering national or global issues can only be found online :-/
Any proof of NPR being a Democrat mouthpiece or is it just you speaking your brain ?
Which unbiased journalists from the web are you talking about ? It doesn't exist. Reporting something over something else is already proof of a certain bias. The journalism work is to explain why you feel that this event is more important than the rest; the objectivity is in argumenting all sides of this event.
I liked the old title imo
Well I can see which way you're leaning and it's not what I'm looking for.
The irony. This video is propaganda too.
I feel a better title would be "is public news propaganda?"
Instead of just simply dunking on Elon, you instead pivot towards a wonderful explanation of how public funding of media works in a few different systems. The difference of where that money comes from, and how the source isn't the full story. It depends on what kind of government is funding it and what their intentions are. In Russia for example it is almost exclusively Putin's propaganda. In comparison in the US or the UK there are some levels of separation and better intentions with the money. This is primarily because of the democratic institutions in place.
A wonderful video as usual! These videos really help remind me that despite issues with our democratic systems at time(s), it is much better than the authoritarian systems we see in too many other places across the world. It rekindles a genuine love for democracy, despite it flaws.
My favorite Elon moves were trashing social media while buying twitter, and trashing AI while he was building his own. His two biggest targets were of course Facebook and ChatGPT. Which of course are his biggest competitors. All the stans are into it either way. Because Elon is right, until he flips completely, and then he's also right. There's a pattern here, and Elon is playing them all and the media too.
Such a dumb take. He realized Twitter was acting as the arbiter of truth when it comes to censorship while doing so in an extremely biased way. He bought it to fix that. He’s losing money on Twitter, it’s not scheme to get richer for him. Brainwashed people like you believe everything the media says about him because you lack critical thinking skills. And this is coming from someone who doesn’t particularly care for the guy
ALL DRAMA QUEENS FOLKS 🧚♀️
why do i keep getting this shit recommended 🙄
For real, this channel just sucks off liberal-democratic values as being the greatest thing ever
Sure, the hybrid model of the CPB is a nice idea, but let's not kid ourselves; Anyone who listens to NPR for even 10 minutes will notice a distinct and overwhelming partisan bent. Is it RT bad or even CNN bad? Of course not. But let's not pretend that NPR, a taxpayer funded organization that you and I pay for btw, is the paragon of pure and unbiased reporting you present it as. I would argue that something like Reuters is a far better model - an independent nonprofit entity which adheres to ironclad guidelines of journalistic integrity, and sticks to a simple, objective style of reporting.
Fair points, but NPR's bias isn't explained by its funding model (whereas the BBC's recent problems, for example, can be). Instead, NPR's bias is probably more related to America's general education polarization, with more educated people in majors like journalism being disproportionately liberal, and then filling out the ranks of an institution like NPR. This is a much more complicated issue and a harder one to address.
The key point is that, by all accounts, no real pressure is exerted (or feasibly could be) on NPR by the government, thanks to the CPB. Simultaneously, it's free from the pressures of advertising and corporate interests. This doesn't mean any media outfit that fits those criteria will be unbiased...only that it is a better formula for more reliable content than anything else.
Edit: even Reuters has had run-ins with corruption on behalf of the British in their international bureaus, but Reuters is indeed a great outfit!
please go read Manufacturing Consent and come back to us after
Media is tainted and can't be fixed. My strategy is to alternate between bl consuming both sources (Fox News vs the mainstream liberal media). Its interesting what key facts each side leaves out when telling stories.
You miss 80% of information doing that, Fox plays at supporting "conservative" issues but regularly blurts out "liberal" stuff and has been pro-actively anti-Trump alongside senoir GOP officials despite his public popularity for that "side" of the political isle
The irony of talking about propaganda while making your own. Goddamn.
What is the difference between statist and pbic media apart from the inversion of language? 😂
Great work. Finally a channel I can show my students without brainwashing them with political, corporate and ideological activism. I would never show them BBC news, DW or Fox content. Its riddled with insultingly poorly crafted corruption and bias.
So genuine question then, how does America pay for anything different? We’re about out of cash.
What?! Public media is more bias than any of them!
1st part. Democracy is in trouble. So Russia and China are good.
Elon is a good counterweight.