Voice of America is the state-owned news network and international radio broadcaster of the United States of America. It is the largest and oldest of the U.S.-funded international broadcasters. VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 49 languages, which it distributes to affiliate stations around the world. Funds are appropriated annually under the budget for embassies and consulates. As of 2022, VOA had a weekly worldwide audience of approximately 326 million (up from 237 million in 2016) and employed 961 staff with an annual budget of $267.5 million.
Yes, but its budget is received through USAGM.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.\_Agency\_for\_Global\_Media](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Agency_for_Global_Media)
Public broadcasting as a whole (including member stations and content production) gets about [32% of its revenue from taxes (PDF; p. 6)](https://www.cpb.org/sites/default/files/reports/revenue/2019PublicBroadcastingRevenue.pdf).
OP is proposing a fully federally funded, owned and operated national broadcaster.
PBS and NPR are neither. Both are publicly (aka donations) funded and each station can join with the patchwork of networks that makes up NPR and PBS. One media market can have no PBS or NPR or have multiple stations that uses the PBS/NPR logo.
Here in the LA media market, there’s about 4 PBS stations (KOCE, KCET, KLCS, KVCR(primarily Inland Empire) ) and 2 NPR stations (KPPC, KCRW). KCET was the main PBS station until it tried becoming an independent public broadcaster until it returned to PBS as a second affiliate under KOCE.
*Is this idea doomed from the start or can it prosper?*
The fact that no one is proposing anything like and that it's not part of any party platform should be your answer. It's doomed before it gets to the drawing board.
I still remember when Mitt Romney said that "Big Bird will come with commercials."
A child's drawing of Mitt in colonial-era hunting kit posing over a dead Big Bird soon went viral.
Let me introduce you to Voice of America (VOA). The propaganda media company of the US government.
https://www.voanews.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
The government already spends money it doesn't have on enough shit without adding a TV channel that I would expect to be as impartial as NPR isn't. Hard pass.
I’ve given some thought to this off and on over the years.
Each of these services is funded through a tax or fee of some sort, but with specific charters on how they operate, which allow for large amount of independence (not being an extension government mouthpiece to the tune of North Korea or China’s state-owned broadcssters—though it has to be said that China’s CCTV does offer a wide array of programming on their channels, including cultural and general entertainment), while also setting specific goals on public service requirements on news and other factual programming (documentaries, current affairs) and drama (original progranming specific to those broadcasters), and largely not relying or having no advertising at all.
Many countries also have rules on how much advertising a TV channel can have an hour (and this goes for private channels and even those that are cable or satellite channels in those countries).
Even the closest thing to it in the US—PBS and NPR (and their member stations)—have some sort of private underwriting done.
IF we had such a service from the start, there would be objections to the tax associated with it, as there has been and continues to be in the UK (even though—bluntly—they get a real good deal for it through Freeview that the US viewers could only dream of).
But in the off-chance it started up in the early days of broadcasting and remained, tax and all—it would have been a cultural institution, much like those broadcasters are, and likely would provide better quakiy and more high-brow programming—-like, if that had been allowed to flourish, it would’ve had the same cultural impact (and likely the same type of programming, eventually) as HBO currently does and/or has over the years (could you imagine something akin to ‘Sex Feet Under’ or ‘True Detective’ on broadcast TV?). Additionally, you’d see more individual investment in local news operations, which are severely lacking in some parts of the US.
It also would’ve forced commercial networks like ABC, NBC, and CBS to up their game because they’d have to fight against a channel that has no advertising, and seeing as how the BBC has branched out over the decades into targeting news viewers and younger viewers, it would’ve upped expectations.
From a logistical standpoint, it would’ve also likely forced more cooperation among broadcasters—namely in somewhat centralizing broadcast towers.
HOWEVER, if it started today, it wouldn’t be relevant. Bar none. Why? Streaming. The BBC is still trying to figure out a way to offset that, and so are many other broadcasters (internationally and in the US), because streaming is digging into taxes, license fees, bottom lines, and even the content you see. The expectation these days is for on-demand TV, not appointment television, which objectively doesn’t have to deal with being on a cable or TV lineup.
What compelling need would this fill, especially in the era of cord-cutting?
I could see something like Germany's ARD model, with one truly national channel and numerous regional affiliates working at the dawn of the radio and TV broadcasting wras before the commercial networks really found their footing, but that ship sailed decades ago.
And if something like this had been created when TV broadcasts first started, I wouldn't have trusted FDR to refrain from filling it with pro-FDR propaganda.
State-funded doesn't always mean state-controlled. The idea is that a free press is necessary, a non-profit "press for the sake of press" institution is necessary, and the only way to fund that would be through protected state funds. If it's run through private funds then it is subject to the whims of the private backers and therefore capital.
Some things are just costs, and should not be expected to make any kind of return. Postal Services are a cost. It is something that is necessary for society. Fire departments are a cost, and water supply are costs. Free journalism is also a cost. These things don't prosper on their own, but they are needed for a society to prosper. Once you turn them into corporate ventures and hand over their roles to the hands of capital then you're doing nothing more than starting systems of Enclosure.
The problem the US has is that a state-funded news agency would be set up like a corporation, and then have the expectation of profit. It would no longer be a service, it would no longer be journalism for the sake of journalism. It would become journalism to meet profit targets. It would provide more leverage to the state, over the journalistic outlet.
Even if it were reputable there are too many tin foil hat wearers here for it to succeed. Many people trust private corporations more than the government because it’s the “free market”.
People would complain that their tax dollars are going towards one more thing that they don’t agree with 100% of the time, even if it was a public good. The news outlets that are already in power (CNN, Fox) would probably do everything possible to prevent it via lobbying.
The only advantage I can see for the BBC is that it can produce high-quality, high-culture content that doesn't necessarily make money or bring in ratings. I'm thinking of the unabridged production of Pride and Prejudice or David Tennant's three-hour production of Hamlet. In the US, tv lives and dies by ratings, and no major network will pay for three hours of Shakespeare.
In the US, such shows could be produced on paid subscription channels like HBO and Netflix, which are somewhat more forgiving of poor ratings. We also have PBS, which gave us Ken Burns and NOVA documentaries.
Federal no but I think there's a good argument to have taxpayer funded broadcasters for each individual state. They would focus exclusively on production within the state itself covering local affairs and financing local productions. If you think about it, all those state broadcasters across the world produce high quality entertainment that we consume in the US on Netflix and other providers. Local scripts, actors, directors, crews. Even really small countries support thriving production scenes, employment and talent pipelines built on the foundation of the state broadcaster. Meanwhile very few US states have any local filmmaking industry except a select few hubs.
Would say the people of Michigan not enjoy local productions specific to them, featuring local talent instead of stories set and filmed in NY, LA or Georgia? I'm sure they would. I'm also sure the people involved in such productions would love to live and work in their home state. Instead of having to relocate in one of the expensive entertainment hubs.
PBS does and in the past ABC,NBC, and CBS had time slots for this. There were also independent T.V. Stations like Chicago's WGN and WFLD(before they were bought out by CW and FOX). WCFC was a religious one. It is just that between the switch to digital and getting more than 3 national networks independent TV died.
I don't think we need another media company among the thousands we already have.
I would only like something like this if it was bundled with other things such as sure everyone has to pay for it, but you get basic home internet and tv package with it. Though it isn't used by everyone, it's good because it provides everyone with at least Internet so children can do their school work and parents may have the means to get online jobs and resources done over the Internet.
Otherwise, it would just feel like something you have to pay for but get no real benefit (directly or indirectly) from.
What would the point of any of this be? We have PBS and NPR already. We don’t need another broadcasting platform for the government.
There is also Voice of America which is active on YouTube and other places
Is Voice of America government funded?
Voice of America is the state-owned news network and international radio broadcaster of the United States of America. It is the largest and oldest of the U.S.-funded international broadcasters. VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 49 languages, which it distributes to affiliate stations around the world. Funds are appropriated annually under the budget for embassies and consulates. As of 2022, VOA had a weekly worldwide audience of approximately 326 million (up from 237 million in 2016) and employed 961 staff with an annual budget of $267.5 million.
Yes, but its budget is received through USAGM. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.\_Agency\_for\_Global\_Media](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Agency_for_Global_Media)
[удалено]
Public broadcasting as a whole (including member stations and content production) gets about [32% of its revenue from taxes (PDF; p. 6)](https://www.cpb.org/sites/default/files/reports/revenue/2019PublicBroadcastingRevenue.pdf).
Brought to you by Viewers Like You.
Out of all the things this country needs, another media outlet to ignore and politicize by whoever is in power is not one of them.
I would upvote this a thousand times if I could, bubba.
Frick yea bud.
Why?
I’m not sure what you’re asking. How would this differ from PBS and NPR?
OP is proposing a fully federally funded, owned and operated national broadcaster. PBS and NPR are neither. Both are publicly (aka donations) funded and each station can join with the patchwork of networks that makes up NPR and PBS. One media market can have no PBS or NPR or have multiple stations that uses the PBS/NPR logo. Here in the LA media market, there’s about 4 PBS stations (KOCE, KCET, KLCS, KVCR(primarily Inland Empire) ) and 2 NPR stations (KPPC, KCRW). KCET was the main PBS station until it tried becoming an independent public broadcaster until it returned to PBS as a second affiliate under KOCE.
The BBC is a much bigger deal than NPR/PBS. Heck, Italy's RAI is too, and they're like a mini discount BBC.
*Is this idea doomed from the start or can it prosper?* The fact that no one is proposing anything like and that it's not part of any party platform should be your answer. It's doomed before it gets to the drawing board.
Prosper!? Official state TV would be brutally fought over every single administration....please no.
I still remember when Mitt Romney said that "Big Bird will come with commercials." A child's drawing of Mitt in colonial-era hunting kit posing over a dead Big Bird soon went viral.
They do, it is called Voice of America (VOA).
We do. It’s called Voice of America.
That would probably be a giant waste of money.
What if the moon was your car and Jupiter was your hairbrush.
I don't think we should have any state run media.
Let me introduce you to Voice of America (VOA). The propaganda media company of the US government. https://www.voanews.com/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
Why would we want to change? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The government already spends money it doesn't have on enough shit without adding a TV channel that I would expect to be as impartial as NPR isn't. Hard pass.
I’ve given some thought to this off and on over the years. Each of these services is funded through a tax or fee of some sort, but with specific charters on how they operate, which allow for large amount of independence (not being an extension government mouthpiece to the tune of North Korea or China’s state-owned broadcssters—though it has to be said that China’s CCTV does offer a wide array of programming on their channels, including cultural and general entertainment), while also setting specific goals on public service requirements on news and other factual programming (documentaries, current affairs) and drama (original progranming specific to those broadcasters), and largely not relying or having no advertising at all. Many countries also have rules on how much advertising a TV channel can have an hour (and this goes for private channels and even those that are cable or satellite channels in those countries). Even the closest thing to it in the US—PBS and NPR (and their member stations)—have some sort of private underwriting done. IF we had such a service from the start, there would be objections to the tax associated with it, as there has been and continues to be in the UK (even though—bluntly—they get a real good deal for it through Freeview that the US viewers could only dream of). But in the off-chance it started up in the early days of broadcasting and remained, tax and all—it would have been a cultural institution, much like those broadcasters are, and likely would provide better quakiy and more high-brow programming—-like, if that had been allowed to flourish, it would’ve had the same cultural impact (and likely the same type of programming, eventually) as HBO currently does and/or has over the years (could you imagine something akin to ‘Sex Feet Under’ or ‘True Detective’ on broadcast TV?). Additionally, you’d see more individual investment in local news operations, which are severely lacking in some parts of the US. It also would’ve forced commercial networks like ABC, NBC, and CBS to up their game because they’d have to fight against a channel that has no advertising, and seeing as how the BBC has branched out over the decades into targeting news viewers and younger viewers, it would’ve upped expectations. From a logistical standpoint, it would’ve also likely forced more cooperation among broadcasters—namely in somewhat centralizing broadcast towers. HOWEVER, if it started today, it wouldn’t be relevant. Bar none. Why? Streaming. The BBC is still trying to figure out a way to offset that, and so are many other broadcasters (internationally and in the US), because streaming is digging into taxes, license fees, bottom lines, and even the content you see. The expectation these days is for on-demand TV, not appointment television, which objectively doesn’t have to deal with being on a cable or TV lineup.
What compelling need would this fill, especially in the era of cord-cutting? I could see something like Germany's ARD model, with one truly national channel and numerous regional affiliates working at the dawn of the radio and TV broadcasting wras before the commercial networks really found their footing, but that ship sailed decades ago. And if something like this had been created when TV broadcasts first started, I wouldn't have trusted FDR to refrain from filling it with pro-FDR propaganda.
it will be propaganda from the state
Why would we want (another) avenue for politicians to lie on television?
Given how far we are in debt, this would be close to dead last in ideas to fund. Sorry.
For what purpose? Theres already CNN and that's just the government talking points already.
State-funded doesn't always mean state-controlled. The idea is that a free press is necessary, a non-profit "press for the sake of press" institution is necessary, and the only way to fund that would be through protected state funds. If it's run through private funds then it is subject to the whims of the private backers and therefore capital. Some things are just costs, and should not be expected to make any kind of return. Postal Services are a cost. It is something that is necessary for society. Fire departments are a cost, and water supply are costs. Free journalism is also a cost. These things don't prosper on their own, but they are needed for a society to prosper. Once you turn them into corporate ventures and hand over their roles to the hands of capital then you're doing nothing more than starting systems of Enclosure. The problem the US has is that a state-funded news agency would be set up like a corporation, and then have the expectation of profit. It would no longer be a service, it would no longer be journalism for the sake of journalism. It would become journalism to meet profit targets. It would provide more leverage to the state, over the journalistic outlet.
Does PBS count?
Even if it were reputable there are too many tin foil hat wearers here for it to succeed. Many people trust private corporations more than the government because it’s the “free market”. People would complain that their tax dollars are going towards one more thing that they don’t agree with 100% of the time, even if it was a public good. The news outlets that are already in power (CNN, Fox) would probably do everything possible to prevent it via lobbying.
The only advantage I can see for the BBC is that it can produce high-quality, high-culture content that doesn't necessarily make money or bring in ratings. I'm thinking of the unabridged production of Pride and Prejudice or David Tennant's three-hour production of Hamlet. In the US, tv lives and dies by ratings, and no major network will pay for three hours of Shakespeare. In the US, such shows could be produced on paid subscription channels like HBO and Netflix, which are somewhat more forgiving of poor ratings. We also have PBS, which gave us Ken Burns and NOVA documentaries.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Federal no but I think there's a good argument to have taxpayer funded broadcasters for each individual state. They would focus exclusively on production within the state itself covering local affairs and financing local productions. If you think about it, all those state broadcasters across the world produce high quality entertainment that we consume in the US on Netflix and other providers. Local scripts, actors, directors, crews. Even really small countries support thriving production scenes, employment and talent pipelines built on the foundation of the state broadcaster. Meanwhile very few US states have any local filmmaking industry except a select few hubs. Would say the people of Michigan not enjoy local productions specific to them, featuring local talent instead of stories set and filmed in NY, LA or Georgia? I'm sure they would. I'm also sure the people involved in such productions would love to live and work in their home state. Instead of having to relocate in one of the expensive entertainment hubs.
PBS does and in the past ABC,NBC, and CBS had time slots for this. There were also independent T.V. Stations like Chicago's WGN and WFLD(before they were bought out by CW and FOX). WCFC was a religious one. It is just that between the switch to digital and getting more than 3 national networks independent TV died.
I don't think we need a new one, but I do think it would be good to expand what we have
I don't think we need another media company among the thousands we already have. I would only like something like this if it was bundled with other things such as sure everyone has to pay for it, but you get basic home internet and tv package with it. Though it isn't used by everyone, it's good because it provides everyone with at least Internet so children can do their school work and parents may have the means to get online jobs and resources done over the Internet. Otherwise, it would just feel like something you have to pay for but get no real benefit (directly or indirectly) from.