Is government funded TV channels the only way to ensure that the citizens get unbiased, objective information?
>>75647846
no, just take a look at fox news
>>75647846
No, it's the worst way. Imagine a propagandamachine that you fund by taxing, how genius isn't that?
it's the exact opposite
Kek.
Short answer: no
Bait
>>75648024
So the BBC is less reliable than, say, dailymail?
Just look at our ABC news. Its all libcuck propaganda. Even worse most millennials think your dumb if you dont listen to it
>>75648003
To clarify, imagine the propaganda from the TV say this "DONATE WORK PAY TAXES BE A GOOD CITIZEN ACCEPT REFUGEES AND (new progressive fad)" like our NRK does. It's just a way for government to become bigger and bigger by changing public opinion in favour of big government.
>>75648112
No they're both shit but for different reasons.
It's not like the Daily Mail is a prime example of a quality (privatized) newspaper
>>75648131
So why is it that newspapers say the exact thing despite being privately owned? Your argument is basically
>I prefer to eat shit over french cheese because french cheese smells bad
>>75648273
What is a good example of a quality privatized newspaper? Are they delivered in the morning by unicorns?
>>75647846
>Government funded
>Unbiased
Choose one Sven
>>75648411
Yeah, I'm sure it's more unbiased if it's owned by a person who can literally shut it down if they don't show exactly what he wants them to show. What is shown on government funded TV is decided by a democratic process, similar to academic research. How is it possible that you think that privately funded channels are unbiased? Did your mother drop you as a child?
>>75647975
What's funny is that Fox News, despite the left's claim, actually has less opinion based segments than both CNN and MSNBC.
Either way
>>75647846
>>75647975
Nice phone post samefag.
>>75648117
maybe you are, generally private channels are shit quality and more commercial than content
>>75648300
Because of the jews, obviously.
I don't give a shit about the newspapers since you're not forced to pay them to stuff your face full of shit and then swallow it, but with the tax-funded TV-station, you kinda are.
>>75648659
>What is shown on government funded TV is decided by a democratic process
Yeah, Pravda sure does allow the democratic process into their news.
>>75648659
My apologies.
I forgot to check your flag.
You opinions are irrelevant since muslims are going to breed you out of existence anyway.
Courtesy of your "unbiased" government btw.
in every western country, it seems like the public media and most private channels all support the left parties, except for one that has a total monopoly on shilling the right. Is that accurate?
America has Fox, Canada Has Sun/The Rebel, Britain has Daily Mail, etc.
BBC is pretty shit although the world service is considered by many to be more reliable than their own state news.
>>75647846
Lügenpresse, Rotfunk... you should probably spend more time raising your wife's son, Håkan
OANN does pretty good even though they claim to be conservative. they usually have qt news anchor ladies too
Our government broadcaster literally fucking prevented Norbert Hofer from becoming president so they can continue their EU kike-tatorship
There is no such thing as unbiased journalism.
There is always bias in what stories you cover, what choice of words your use etc.
I would much prefer news sources clearly declaring thier biases and let the read take that as they will.
That being said, SVT is one of the more biased or agenda driven news organisations in the world.
Any swede still paying TV-license is activly contributing to thier own destruction.
There is literally no consequence, just tell them to fuck of when they call.
>>75648369
Financial Times, Independent, Glasgow Herald
Al Jazeera is rather less biased that most western outlets, except when it comes to arab domestic issues
>>75648112
You tell me.
https://youtu.be/qAErXUlMYXM
>>75648659
>>75649495
Sure thing buddy.
>>75648954
>Nice phone post samefag
Thanks
>>75649449
Those newspapers even admit to being biased, and you know that Al Jazeera is state-funded also, right?
>>75649856
All papers are biased, and yes I'm aware Al Jazeera is state funded. The only news you should care about is the news from other countries or local papers. Anything on the state level is too biased to be of any use, especially a state funded outfit
No such thing as unbiased news.
A nationalistic government should control at least a news channel of its own. This should be a pro government, pro nation station.
>>75648954
>>75650014
And you expect the average Joe to look up foreign news sources just to get information about daily events on national or international level?
>>75649856
like
>>75650014
said.
You might as well accept everything is biased to some degree. I try to read numerous papers that are right wing, centre, left wing, so on so forth. See what different papers say about the same thing and form your own view. It's not perfect but it's better than just getting your stuff from one source.
>>75650989
Better he get his news from the Totally Unbiased State News Network right?
>>75651173
This is flawed reasoning. Just because you read lots of different sources doesn't mean that any of them are correct, and you are more likely to listen to spin than you are to listen to content. One pound of gold is better than one ton of ore.
>>75649276
It's too bad there's no live streams of them so people can stop coming back to morning Jeb.
I cant believe that actually aired on live tv, dank memes are the future
