حاولت نشر هذا التعليق على موقع منبر الحرية، ولكن حدث خطأ. يبدو أن نشر التعليقات لا يعمل هناك، فأنشر تعليقي هنا:
انظر إلى القنوات التلفزيونية في بريطانيا وفرنسا وأمريكا، تجد أن الإعلام الخاص مليء بالبرامج الهابطة والدعاية السياسية (مثل قناة فوكس الأمريكية التابعة للحزب الجمهوري)، بينما الإعلام العام (مثل البي بي سي) ينتج وحده برامج وثائقية عالية الجودة، ويفضح آثام الدولة والشركات الكبيرة. يعتمد الإعلام الخاص على بث إعلانات لهذه الشركات، فيتعذر عليه انتقادها أو مهاجمة مصالحها. أما الإعلام العام فيتلقى تمويلاً من الدولة، مما يغنيه عن الاعتماد على بث الإعلانات، وهو في نفس الوقت مستقل عن الدولة فيما يتعلق بمضمون البرامج، فيستطيع أن ينتج برامج مهمة لا يمكن أن ينتجها الإعلام الخاص.
Benjamin- If you have some time, please see my recent tweets on twitter for a discussion I just had today on the subject. Public broadcasting is generally very problematic, especially if you consider yourself a (classical) liberal.
Public broadcasting has its problems in the countries I mentioned, mostly because of under-funding, and (much more rarely) because of government interference. It seems to me that the problems of private broadcasting are far worse.
You said you wanted media that would be free to criticise the state. The fact remains that the BBC does a much better job of criticising the state than FOX does, and it provides a great deal of programming that is beneficial to society, but cannot be supported by advertising.
Your argument on Twitter -- "Only those interested in supporting it should pay" -- ignores economic inequality. You seem to have forgotten that the people with the greatest need for public services are the ones who are least able to pay for them.
Your so-called "classical liberalism" is certainly not the liberalism of Adam Smith, who believed that the state should provide public services, and that the wealthy should therefore pay higher taxes than the poor.
The fact that to date the BBC **seems** to be unbiased and unaffected by the government doesn't mean that when push comes to shove, they will cave. Yes, even in the UK. I listen to the BBC on a daily basis for about an hour. Some material seems to me to be unbiased, but some else isn't. Same with Al-Jazeera.
I do not like Fox either. Nor Al-Jazeera entirely. But I think that it is important that all of these media be allowed to survive and a state/tax-backed medium already gives an unequal opportunity for all media that don't have the backing of the state.
When I decided to mention Al-Jazeera (and the BBC, for that matter), from the perspective of an Egyptian in Egypt, it is not an **Egyptian** government back entity. Inside Egypt, Al-Jazeera is a private entity. If I were Qatari, I would be fighting the fact that the Qatari government is supporting it.
I am very aware of my classical liberalism. I am very well versed in the works of Locke, Adam Smith, Voltaire, and later von Mises and F.A. Hayek. I am more Hayekian than anything. And like Hayek, I think that how much government gets to be involved in society is a flexible knob that can be tweaked, but media is most definitely not one of those venues in which government should be involved.
Can you please send me a quote or a reference from Adam Smith's works on why the more wealthy should pay more in taxes?
Mr. Benjamin If we are alking about classical liberalism, then what we essentially are referring to are services that no one but the state can provide for, such as defense and foreign policy as well as providing services for the elderly and kids (health insurance, etc). The only problem for state owned media is the difficulty to sue in case of defamation, emotional or financial distress, etc. I can very much sue FOX a** or Al Jazeera in Egypt had I been affected in any way. The debate going on in Egypt now is whether to cut out kissing and hugging scenes. Again, the government is taking charge of dictating what is moral and acceptable without consulting with the public. So much for the liberties that people chanted for during the revolution. Problems of State owned media are countless. We still bear the bad legacy of having a former ministry of media and it will take so long before the collective consciousness gets rid of the subtext of Government as a Big Brother who monitors and censors what we watch. It's a slippery slope that ends with an extreme case as North Korea and China.
أزال المؤلف هذا التعليق.
ردحذفأزال المؤلف هذا التعليق.
ردحذفحاولت نشر هذا التعليق على موقع منبر الحرية، ولكن حدث خطأ. يبدو أن نشر التعليقات لا يعمل هناك، فأنشر تعليقي هنا:
ردحذفانظر إلى القنوات التلفزيونية في بريطانيا وفرنسا وأمريكا، تجد أن الإعلام الخاص مليء بالبرامج الهابطة والدعاية السياسية (مثل قناة فوكس الأمريكية التابعة للحزب الجمهوري)، بينما الإعلام العام (مثل البي بي سي) ينتج وحده برامج وثائقية عالية الجودة، ويفضح آثام الدولة والشركات الكبيرة. يعتمد الإعلام الخاص على بث إعلانات لهذه الشركات، فيتعذر عليه انتقادها أو مهاجمة مصالحها. أما الإعلام العام فيتلقى تمويلاً من الدولة، مما يغنيه عن الاعتماد على بث الإعلانات، وهو في نفس الوقت مستقل عن الدولة فيما يتعلق بمضمون البرامج، فيستطيع أن ينتج برامج مهمة لا يمكن أن ينتجها الإعلام الخاص.
Benjamin- If you have some time, please see my recent tweets on twitter for a discussion I just had today on the subject. Public broadcasting is generally very problematic, especially if you consider yourself a (classical) liberal.
ردحذفPublic broadcasting has its problems in the countries I mentioned, mostly because of under-funding, and (much more rarely) because of government interference. It seems to me that the problems of private broadcasting are far worse.
ردحذفYou said you wanted media that would be free to criticise the state. The fact remains that the BBC does a much better job of criticising the state than FOX does, and it provides a great deal of programming that is beneficial to society, but cannot be supported by advertising.
Your argument on Twitter -- "Only those interested in supporting it should pay" -- ignores economic inequality. You seem to have forgotten that the people with the greatest need for public services are the ones who are least able to pay for them.
Your so-called "classical liberalism" is certainly not the liberalism of Adam Smith, who believed that the state should provide public services, and that the wealthy should therefore pay higher taxes than the poor.
And by the way, Al Jazeera, which you praised, is a public channel; most of its funding comes from the Qatari government.
ردحذفThe fact that to date the BBC **seems** to be unbiased and unaffected by the government doesn't mean that when push comes to shove, they will cave. Yes, even in the UK. I listen to the BBC on a daily basis for about an hour. Some material seems to me to be unbiased, but some else isn't. Same with Al-Jazeera.
ردحذفI do not like Fox either. Nor Al-Jazeera entirely. But I think that it is important that all of these media be allowed to survive and a state/tax-backed medium already gives an unequal opportunity for all media that don't have the backing of the state.
When I decided to mention Al-Jazeera (and the BBC, for that matter), from the perspective of an Egyptian in Egypt, it is not an **Egyptian** government back entity. Inside Egypt, Al-Jazeera is a private entity. If I were Qatari, I would be fighting the fact that the Qatari government is supporting it.
I am very aware of my classical liberalism. I am very well versed in the works of Locke, Adam Smith, Voltaire, and later von Mises and F.A. Hayek. I am more Hayekian than anything. And like Hayek, I think that how much government gets to be involved in society is a flexible knob that can be tweaked, but media is most definitely not one of those venues in which government should be involved.
Can you please send me a quote or a reference from Adam Smith's works on why the more wealthy should pay more in taxes?
I'd be curious for
Mr. Benjamin
ردحذفIf we are alking about classical liberalism, then what we essentially are referring to are services that no one but the state can provide for, such as defense and foreign policy as well as providing services for the elderly and kids (health insurance, etc).
The only problem for state owned media is the difficulty to sue in case of defamation, emotional or financial distress, etc. I can very much sue FOX a** or Al Jazeera in Egypt had I been affected in any way.
The debate going on in Egypt now is whether to cut out kissing and hugging scenes. Again, the government is taking charge of dictating what is moral and acceptable without consulting with the public. So much for the liberties that people chanted for during the revolution. Problems of State owned media are countless. We still bear the bad legacy of having a former ministry of media and it will take so long before the collective consciousness gets rid of the subtext of Government as a Big Brother who monitors and censors what we watch. It's a slippery slope that ends with an extreme case as North Korea and China.
kissing and hugging... so much for state run, tax-based state run TV. Before you know it, in Egypt, MB will be running the show.
ردحذف