ddhr.org | 2010 | 02 | 17 about | archives | comments | rss

Tax-funded news Wed, Feb 17, 2010
Most news coverage is entertainment.  That's how stories are chosen over other stories, and that's why everybody covers the same stories.  If it wasn't entertaining, people wouldn't watch, and then nobody would make any money.  It's the same with the weather:  Unless there's a winter storm warning, people won't pay attention.  I think that's why weather predictions are usually wrong.  If they predict a catastrophic storm that will kill all of humanity but it doesn't end up happening, hey at least you watched.  Made you look. 

With this in mind, I think there should be a taxpayer-funded news outlet that simply reports information.  NPR sort of does this already, but they're only partially taxpayer-supported.  They also require listener donations, which I don't do, and which I feel bad about.  A fully taxpayer-funded news outlet could tell you what the president did today, who won American Idol, one major death or natural disaster per day, and the weather, but only the weather that can be predicted to a reasonable accuracy, i.e. if you say it's snowing right now and I look out my window and it's not snowing, you're fired.  The problem of course would be who gets to decide what's newsworthy and what's not.  I don't have a solution for that problem.  The other problem would be who would do the reporting.  Reporters and journalists tend to get big heads based on how many people watch their pseudo news programs.  We don't need another Katie Couric.  I'm thinking we could either go with someone who already has a big head (e.g. Oprah, or Trump, or maybe Bill Gates), or it could just be an asexual colorless robot.  That way no one would get offended. #entertainment

← older post 2248 of 3123 newer →