I am motivated to ask this question after watching the Adam Kokesh / Jason Burmas interview, which mimics pretty closely conversations I have with people. The exact same bad statist arguments, the same progression to the conversation, ending with essentially "I am not saying you're wrong, but lets just agree to disagree".
One thing I wanted to ask people here about is how to better answer questions about the media. Everyone pretty much agrees that the mainstream media is trash, and I'd like to be able to point to specific government interventions that might be a cause of this.
Adam says (see 20:20) that Big Media gets its powers from government, but (due to the fast-paced conversation) only provides one (fairly weak) piece of evidence for this... "They get to interview the President."
In what more substantive ways does government intervene in the media, which make the current Big Media a bad model for what a free market media could be? How does the government (or how did the government before the internet) maintain the media cartel?
Finally, isn't there a decent argument to be made that Big Media is actually very efficiently satisying consumer demand right now... aren't the masses getting exactly what they want from their TV's and newspapers?
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
They are satisfying consumer demand for entertainment, however they are marketing their goods as 'objective, accurate reporting of facts and events'. Technically a case of fraud.
The main problem I see is that rarely does mainstream media cover anything of substance. Personally, I don't care what Congressman X tweeted about Obama, or the godawful "political analysis" done by airheaded "political commentators." But the point of mass media is to divert the public's attention away from issues that matter, so maybe they're doing their job.
Good thing we have Fox News to stick it to all those liberal bastards.
What's wrong with the mainstream media? They seek to entertain and spread the opinion of the people who own them. Which generally involves no offending the wealthy, not covering free trade treaties or painting OWS as silly teenagers.
excel: they are marketing their goods as 'objective, accurate reporting of facts and events'.
they are marketing their goods as 'objective, accurate reporting of facts and events'.
Are they?
Graham Wright:In what more substantive ways does government intervene in the media, which make the current Big Media a bad model for what a free market media could be? How does the government (or how did the government before the internet) maintain the media cartel?
FCC and copyright.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Friedmanite: the point of mass media is to divert the public's attention away from issues that matter, so maybe they're doing their job.
the point of mass media is to divert the public's attention away from issues that matter, so maybe they're doing their job.
The "point" of any firm is to maximise profits. Are you saying that there is collusion going on and actually the media organizations have some goal other than maximising their profits? I think the fact that they all get together at places like Bilderberg shows this is true.
But free market theory tells us that collusion is not sufficient for a long-lasting cartel; you can only maintain a cartel with some form of government intervention. Without government intervention, the cartel will collapse, either through one of the colluders breaking the agreement (i.e. trying to maximise profits, rather than sticking to the agreement to "divert the public's attention away from issues that matter"), or through new entrants to the market out-competing the cartel, or both. Why haven't any of these things happened to collapse the cartel?
The relationship between the state and the media in the USA is different to that in other countries that have a tv license and a state media dominated market. Although they do share some similar characteristics. The mainstream media generally get their news from the news wires (AP, reuters), official bodies and associations, the government in the form of press releases and other independent sources. In countries with a TV license like the UK the state media requires a tax for watching television to fund its own media empire. They have strict regulations on content if you are able to launch a tv channel or radio station.
The government creates barriers to entry in the media industry through licensing requirements and regulations that can increase the cost. I am not sure what the media gets out of a relationship with the government in the usa. I think it is more that people that work for the media organizations are employed because they have a specific ideology and that includes the state. So they are in favor of the state and they work together to further their shared interest.
It is a lot more subtle than people might think. All you realy need is the chief editors of a few main newspapers and the chiefs of a few major media organizations to create a public consensus or to assist in furthering an agenda. What they get out of it, we can only imagine.
Daniel Muffinburg: Graham Wright:In what more substantive ways does government intervene in the media, which make the current Big Media a bad model for what a free market media could be? How does the government (or how did the government before the internet) maintain the media cartel? FCC and copyright.
Can you elaborate on the effects those have?
I've heard that the CIA regulates them in addition to the FCC, so that could also explain why they're so terrible.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
+1 ... Muffinburg nails it again...
So, what was journalism like before the FCC and copyrights? Well, we can't answer the second one.
The FCC licenses the use of airwaves and many FCC regulations apply to cable and other non-broadcast media despite the fact that they are not broadcasting! Being a government agency, praxeological law dictates that it will allocate airwaves according to the interests of the government, not the interests of the tooth fairy or the interests of "Society", whatever that is.
Copyright/IP law have a cartelizing effect on all forms of media. This is very visible in the record industry where wannabe-superstars travel to Hollywood or Nashville and throw themselves at the record label executives in the hopes of capturing a tiny sliver of the multi-billion dollar money fountain. If they please the right people in the right way, they might even make a name for themselves. Needless to say, in this environment, bands write music to please the record label executives, not the crowds. It's up to the record label executives - not the crowds - whether crowd-pleasing music is being served or not.
The same dynamic is in operation in the news media but with the added twist that the single largest headline generator is the government itself. Careers are made and lost on access to prominent government figures, so being in good standing with prominent government figures is a prerequisite to the highest echelons of success. Needless to say, anarchism is not a popular political philosophy among prominent government figures.
Clayton -
Well, we can't answer the second one.
So maybe the answer is that we don't need journalists at all.
Oh noes!!!!!!!11111111111
If we could assrape the mainstream media and outlaw all but nonprofit news, I'd be glad.
Graham Wright:"lets just agree to disagree".
And when talking of monopoly here, Friedman states that in the US, the strongest and most important monopolies are those that derive from governmental privilige...and lists the monopoly of a TV license first.
Not according to the ratings and subscriptions.
Jack Roberts: The relationship between the state and the media in the USA is different to that in other countries that have a tv license and a state media dominated market. Although they do share some similar characteristics. The mainstream media generally get their news from the news wires (AP, reuters), official bodies and associations, the government in the form of press releases and other independent sources. In countries with a TV license like the UK the state media requires a tax for watching television to fund its own media empire. They have strict regulations on content if you are able to launch a tv channel or radio station.
I didn't want to mention the BBC because it's pretty obvious how the state controls the message that organisation is putting out. But the thing is, I don't perceive the BBC as being any more pro-State than ITV, Sky or any of the American channels. Governments clearly don't need a state run media in order to control the message that is being put out.
How do news wires operate?
The government creates barriers to entry in the media industry through licensing requirements and regulations that can increase the cost.
What are the licensing requirements and regulations on, say, a newspaper? "Thou shalt support the State"?
Clayton: Can you elaborate on the effects those have? The FCC licenses the use of airwaves and many FCC regulations apply to cable and other non-broadcast media despite the fact that they are not broadcasting! Being a government agency, praxeological law dictates that it will allocate airwaves according to the interests of the government, not the interests of the tooth fairy or the interests of "Society", whatever that is.
OK, what about newspapers? Does the FCC regulate them too?
Copyright/IP law have a cartelizing effect on all forms of media. This is very visible in the record industry where wannabe-superstars travel to Hollywood or Nashville and throw themselves at the record label executives in the hopes of capturing a tiny sliver of the multi-billion dollar money fountain. If they please the right people in the right way, they might even make a name for themselves. Needless to say, in this environment, bands write music to please the record label executives, not the crowds. It's up to the record label executives - not the crowds - whether crowd-pleasing music is being served or not. The same dynamic is in operation in the news media
The same dynamic is in operation in the news media
I can't quite see how the same dynamic is in play. Do the record label executives really choose whether crowd-pleasing music is to be served? Don't they still seek profits, except that IP allows them to make much larger profits than they would otherwise?
but with the added twist that the single largest headline generator is the government itself. Careers are made and lost on access to prominent government figures, so being in good standing with prominent government figures is a prerequisite to the highest echelons of success. Needless to say, anarchism is not a popular political philosophy among prominent government figures.
I suppose this is a big factor, but it doesn't seem satisfactory because it is still saying that collusion (not actual government intervention into the industry) is the root cause. It's conceivable that one organisation in a free market could be a "headline generator" on the same level that government is now, and then that organisation would have equivalent influence in the media to government now, if this explanation is all there is to it.
Another example. I just watched a documentary that mentioned the Trans-Texas Corridor and it said that the company hoping to build the road bought up dozens of newspapers along the route, in order to change public opinion in favor of the project. My first thought was why didn't the sellers of the original newspapers just start new competing newspapers which were anti-TTC, then presumably they could have out-competed the "sold out" rags. I don't see what government intervention could have stopped this happening. Maybe they did, but they weren't able to out-compete the original papers, because they could not get enough readers to switch.
Graham Wright:How do news wires operate?
They basically create content and put it out there, and all the news organizations basically sit at the spigot, basically watching the wires like hungry pigs waiting for the next feed. That's basically the majority of what they do. They literally watch the wires 24 hours a day, and then report what information they're given. Depending on the organization they decide what to report and when, and how much time to dedicate to it, but a large portion of the mainstream media is slave to only a few main sources of information.
And of course, as you might guess, the government is one of those major sources.
From everything to national and international news to local happenings — as discussed in War Made Easy (an incredibly well done film..I mean like, you need to watch it and send it to everyone you know)...they make the case quite clear that news organizations are quite beholden to government agencies, as if they report anything that is too unacceptable or out of line, they may not get the interview with the top General, or the CIA director, or the official for whatever agency has the most information on the topic at hand next time.
The case of Kelly Thomas is a great example on the local level. A local blog ended up basically breaking that story and bringing it to national and even international attention while the local media took no interest initially. And in that segment you hear the same thing...how reporters will even tell you straight up, they need to maintain at least a working relationship with the police, because if they print something that doesn't shine well on the department, they're not very likely to much information in the future. And of course they rely on the department for a lot of relevant info on crime and cases. So essentially, you have to play ball if you want to keep your own job.
It's not that straightforward, but think about it...you need state approval before you can start your business, and virtually everything you do is under that government grant...which can be revoked at any time. You're not going to get a governmental privilege without being at least "friendly" with the State (i.e. players within power positions). And you're certainly not going to keep that privilege if you ever cross the line too far.
Wow, Milton is awesome at talking to Statists. It looks like that interviewer changed his mind, just from 3 minutes of hearing Milton!
What TV license is he talking about? I thought the U.S. didn't have a UK-style TV license?
A large part of that will be that people are getting news from the same sources but through the internet.
Graham Wright:What are the licensing requirements and regulations on, say, a newspaper? "Thou shalt support the State"?
You have to realize that businesses in the United States are not allowed to operate without permission from the state, whether it be though business licenses, import/export licenses, professional certifications/licenses, health/safety laws, zoning laws, etc.
Regarding newspapers, read this The FCC's newspaper-broadcast cross ownership rule (http://www.epi.org/publication/books_cross-ownership/).
Newspapers are a lot different than radio and TV. The BBC is far more pro state than other private newspapers. You would never see the bbc news investigate the state and uncover expenses scandal like The Telegraph newspaper managed to do a few years ago. Private newspapers often have more of a pro capitalism ideology or at least pro business. While the bbc has no advertising so they are not dictated/manipulated by any advertising. They are held captive by the state's own regulatory bodies. It goes against the interest of the BBC to report on the state and reduce the size of the state. This is not the same incentive that a private news newspaper has. As long as you don't break the law by encouraging unlawful activity. I think you can freely printer a newspaper and distribute it. But when it comes to TV and radio there is a lot of licensing costs. Fees 20. The application must be accompanied by the application fee. Application fees are reviewed by Ofcom annually, and applicants should consult the Ofcom website for the most up to date information on fees. The tariff tables are published no later than 31 March each year. The application fee for 2010/11 is £2,500 per application. 21. The application fee is non-refundable. 22. Once a service is licensed, fees are charged annually in April. The annual fee is based on a percentage of Relevant Turnover subject to a minimum fee (for all services licensed as DTPS/DTAS except teleshopping services, which are charged a fixed annual fee). http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/tv/guidancemay2010.pdf http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/Tariff_Tables_2001112.pdf Minimum annual fee of £1000 that increases with the more revenue you earn. But it is not as much as I thought it would have been unless I am not reading it correctly. At 0.03058% up to £10 million revenue. Then you have to ad here by the broadcasting code. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/ For radio ofcom charge £100000 for a national license annually and local licenses are charged based on how many listeners you reach. Then there are the network license fees which get passed on to the broadcasters via higher costs. arqiva in the UK are the main broadcasting network and I believe and you can rent a channel on sky or virgin for I think about 300k annually. That is excluding program costs and other costs, just the payment to sky or arqiva. I have no idea what arqiva charge but for a national tv channel I would imagine that it would be substantial. I do however think there is still a lot of opportunity to start a tv channel and radio and newspaper. There are a few independent newspapers that i have seen people create and there was one channel on sky that used to have on non mainstream guests. It would be possible to create more competition in the UK. It is just having the financial backing the capabilities to put it all together so that it is profitable enough to maintain it. It would still cost a lot of money to own a tv broadcasting channel on some mediums due to the network costs but on some platforms like cable it would be substantially cheaper without license fees.
Whether or not the media will support free trade, lower capital gains taxes, and lower corporate gains taxes is not something I'm going to bring up yet.
But looking at the reverse relationship, media lobbying government, there's a lot of money flowing from the media firms to PACs to both parties.
Graham Wright:Wow, Milton is awesome at talking to Statists.
Oh yeah. I don't think I've seen anyone better. Definitely check out the list at Guides and Knowledge for your Intellectual Journey.
Basically the airwaves are regulated such that each company has a set place within the broadcast spectrum. A large part of the reasoning for this originally was so that multiple broadcasters wheren't trying to send information over the same frequency and disrupting the transmissions.
See:
Broadcast license
(and believe it or not, some countries even have license requirements to receive television transmissions)
That's a decent point, and there's some truth to that, but I could just as easily point to revenues and make the same argument. Newspapers are dying. And broadcast TV is constantly hemorrhaging viewers to cable, premium subscription channels, and plenty of other forms of entertainment/info sources...including the Internet. People simply have more options now...and the total audience for those companies (including their non-primary venue, e.g. TV, newspaper) is in overall decline...which to me shows a demonstrated preference for other things...which ultimately says Big Media is not "actually very efficiently satisying consumer demand right now", and the masses aren't "getting exactly what they want from their TV's and newspapers". Otherwise they wouldn't be going elsewhere...would they.
Oh yeah. I don't think I've seen anyone better.
The monetarist?
I'm really enjoying this thread btw.
mustang19:The monetarist?
How did I know this would come up.
Yes Milton Friedman was a monetarist. And yes I don't think I've seen anyone better than him at talking to Statists.
Don't they still seek profits, except that IP allows them to make much larger profits than they would otherwise?
The point is that they owe those profits to the largesse of the State, so the record label executives are handmaidens of the State, they must defer to its desires. Why did the King ever grant monopoly licenses in the first place except to gain influence over the market? So, when the State asks the record label execs to produce a particular type of music, that's what gets produced. This might sound insane but it's reality, here's a specific example - the US government takes over General Motors in 2010. In mid-2010, Far East Movement releases a single called Like a G6 which goes on to top the charts and is played incessantly by Top-40 stations throughout 2010 and early 2011 and is still occasionally played today. Speculation was rampant about what the hell exactly a G6 is. The band eventually explained that they were referring to the Gulfstream G650 but it doesn't really matter even if this is true - millions and millions of people (I am one of them) Googled "G6" to figure out what the hell they were talking about and got search results that looked like this.
Call me insane if you like but this is, in fact, how the world works.
Like a G6
The Gulfstream VI?
George Carlin
The (left) anarchist?
edit:
More you know.
mustang19:...outlaw all but nonprofit news, I'd be glad.
Force is not the answer. Removing broadcasting restrictions would be a help. More freedom, not less.
Okay. No more derailing, y'all.
John James: They basically create content and put it out there, and all the news organizations basically sit at the spigot, basically watching the wires like hungry pigs waiting for the next feed. That's basically the majority of what they do. They literally watch the wires 24 hours a day, and then report what information they're given. Depending on the organization they decide what to report and when, and how much time to dedicate to it, but a large portion of the mainstream media is slave to only a few main sources of information. And of course, as you might guess, the government is one of those major sources.
Thanks.
I watched the first 20 minutes when you posted it, but Sean Penn's droning voice made me switch off. I'll try again with it though as you are so positive about it.
That video really helped. Thanks.
Daniel Muffinburg: Graham Wright:What are the licensing requirements and regulations on, say, a newspaper? "Thou shalt support the State"? You have to realize that businesses in the United States are not allowed to operate without permission from the state, whether it be though business licenses, import/export licenses, professional certifications/licenses, health/safety laws, zoning laws, etc. Regarding newspapers, read this The FCC's newspaper-broadcast cross ownership rule (http://www.epi.org/publication/books_cross-ownership/).
I realise that, and it's the same here. The thing that I wasn't understanding is why such government interventions would cause media organisations to be quite as pro-State as they are. That is, why the product is skewed in such a particular direction. Regulations in general tend to favor bigger businesses, but other than that they don't have a huge influence over the products. For example, in the restaurant industry, there are similar requirements (licenses, health/safety, etc), and these obviously make the product more expensive, and competition less vibrant, but the nature of the final product is not much different, e.g. the ratio of Chinese to Indian restaurants in my town would likely not change if the restaurant regulations were gone... there would probably be more of both, and the ratio would be maintained.
I was thinking that anti-State newspapers were like Chinese restaurants, and pro-State newspapers were like Indian restaurants. I suppose the State doesn't care whether people are eating Chinese or Indian food, but if they did, they could manipulate the industry by charging 10x more for a license for a Chinese restaurant compared to an Indian. That would not be very subtle. I guess I was looking for a similar un-subtle way that the State might intervene in favor of pro-State newspapers over anti-State.
Ownership of the airwaves is a pretty obvious and unsubtle way the State can control TV stations. But I am not sure how this works in practice. I mean, what are the people who review the license applications, and the people who can revoke them, looking for? I am not expecting to find a rule that says "any station with anti-State message gets it's license revoked". That would be too obvious. Maybe the rule is more like "any station with a biased message gets it's license revoked" and then they can shut down any anti-State station on grounds of "bias". They could do a similar thing for newspapers.
But it seems to me now that this observation that the media has to cozy up to government officials and police to get ongoing information is actually a much more effective way for the State to control the media, and has a bigger effect of making the media pro-State than either licensing or copyright. So the mainstream media are not bad because of any specific government intervention, but more just as a side-effect of government being so big and all-encompassing... and hence the overwhelming "headline generator" in society.
Has anyone heard of LINK tv?
They are pretty leftist but mainly get funded by donations:
http://www.linktv.org/
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
John James: Graham Wright:Wow, Milton is awesome at talking to Statists. Oh yeah. I don't think I've seen anyone better. Definitely check out the list at Guides and Knowledge for your Intellectual Journey.
I agree. I watched the Free To Choose series in full a couple of years ago and was very impressed. His main skill is in how he relates to his audience. It never feels like he is preaching. He respects his audience, and often asks them questions to try to get them to think through his logic. He is also exceptional at getting to the source of disagreement straight away, explaining his position concisely and patiently, and using humor and flattery. Ron Paul is great obviously, but I can't imagine Milton ever acting the way Ron did on that Morton Downey show from 1988. That's NOT how you get people to think about what you're saying.
What TV license is he talking about? I thought the U.S. didn't have a UK-style TV license? Basically the airwaves are regulated such that each company has a set place within the broadcast spectrum. A large part of the reasoning for this originally was so that multiple broadcasters wheren't trying to send information over the same frequency and disrupting the transmissions. See: Broadcast license (and believe it or not, some countries even have license requirements to receive television transmissions)
I know. I live in one of those countries. To me "TV license" means a license to receive TV transmissions. That's what confused me. I guess to Milton and you "TV license" means a license to broadcast TV transmissions.
I have to have a TV license if I want to watch or record any live UK TV. That includes cable and satellite, and even ITV and Channel 4, which are the two non-BBC broadcast channels, but as far as I know all license fee money goes to the BBC. I don't need a license to use BBC iPlayer or 4OD (Channel 4 online service) to watch stuff later, but I had to tick a box on those sites to confirm I have a TV license to make live TV available on there. I don't need a similar license to listen to live radio. The radio license was phased out in 1971 and now BBC Radio is funded through the TV license fee. It's a pretty strange system. When you buy a TV from a retailer, I believe they legally have to take your name and address and report it to the TV licensing people, so that they can send someone round to your house if you are unlicensed to try catch you red-handed in the despicable act of watching live TV without State permission.
But alas the BBC is much cherished in this country, and most people happily pay the license fee, saying it's worth it to not have adverts on the BBC. Among British institutions, it's up there with the NHS (socialized medicine) in terms of how much people love it.
“What’s wrong with the mainstream media?”
Before answering this question, what is the mainstream media? Each newspaper (The Washington Post, The New York Times, etc.) and each news channels (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) has regular fluctuations in viewership, so that one is a news leader one month, but not another. I don’t have the viewer statistics long them, but my guess is that you are referencing, ABC News, PBS, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and the major newspapers previously mentioned. There are a variety of factors. One is ideology.
For example, yesterday USA Today published an opinion by ACLU lawyer Hina Shamsi that was critical of the Obama administration’s drone program. When was the last time you saw a mainstream opinion piece call taxation theft or the government illegitimate? There are limits to what the mainstream media allows.
Another factor is lack of skepticism, especially of government claims. For example, Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog group that will excoriate false conservative claims, but not liberal ones, reported October 30, 2007, ‘News outlets including CNN, the Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times uncritically quoted White House spokeswoman Dana Perino's response to a question about an October 23 Federal Emergency Management Agency press conference, in which the questions were asked by FEMA staffers playing reporters. Perino said of the conference, "It is not a practice that we would employ here at the White House and we certainly don't condone it." But these news outlets failed to note previous Bush administration scandals involving "fake" reporting.’
Another factor is non-disclosure. For example, Media Matters reported July 2, 2008, ‘NBC's Today and Nightly News and MSNBC Live aired segments in which correspondent Janet Shamlian reported live from an offshore drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. But while two of Shamlian's reports included quotes from a Chevron spokesperson, none of her reports included an interview with or quote from environmental organizations or explained the "environmental concerns" that Shamlian acknowledged exist. Further, neither Shamlian nor the hosts and anchors disclosed that General Electric, which owns 80 percent of NBC Universal, also has an affiliated business unit that is invested in the acquisition and production of oil and natural gas and another that is a major supplier of equipment and services for the offshore drilling industry.’
If you want to see how a combination of these factors helped the Bush administration sell the Iraq War, watching the PBS documentary Buying the War.
Jack Roberts: Newspapers are a lot different than radio and TV. The BBC is far more pro state than other private newspapers. You would never see the bbc news investigate the state and uncover expenses scandal like The Telegraph newspaper managed to do a few years ago.
Newspapers are a lot different than radio and TV. The BBC is far more pro state than other private newspapers. You would never see the bbc news investigate the state and uncover expenses scandal like The Telegraph newspaper managed to do a few years ago.
Maybe. I pretty much stopped watching TV back in 2008, and before that I was probably blind to it. I've never read newspapers on a regular basis, maybe some newspapers aren't so bad.
As for the expenses scandal, that story just annoyed me for the most part. It went on and on. People were outraged that an MP had paid £3k for a toilet seat or whatever, but they weren't bothered in the least about them spending billions bailing out banks. It is hardly a big scandal in the scheme of things. After it broke, the government used the story to it's advantage because it distracted from more serious things going on.
the bbc has no advertising so they are not dictated/manipulated by any advertising.
I hear that a lot from people arguing in favor of the BBC. This view is very dangerous, because it makes the BBC much more powerful. People let their guard down when watching the BBC and they think they are getting "fair and balanced" news because the BBC supposedly serves "the public interest", while Sky and the rest are (of course) biased in favor of their sponsors, the evil, greedy corporations. Advertising on the BBC just takes a different form. Look at any BBC nature documentary of the last 20 years. Practically all of them repeatedly emphasise the "humans bad, environment good" message. A friend of mine is an avid nature-lover and even before she realised that climate change is a scam, she found BBC nature documentaries so depressing because they hit that note so hard and so often.
you have to ad here by the broadcasting code. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/
Yep, there it is. "To ensure that news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality."
Thanks for the info about the costs of the licenses. Sounds pretty expensive to me. The internet is the way to go.
Thumbs up on War Made Easy - one of the best points they make (and support with gold-plated examples) is the uncritical quoting of "government sources" as if government sources are some kind of objective purveyors of facts instead of interested parties seeking to sway public opinion on the question of war. This is a gaping hole in journalistic integrity and it needs to come to a stop.
Timely LRC blog entry on this very topic...
I find it fitting that the sountrack from The Adjustment Bureau is playing towards the end.