reply to post by orangetom1999
I was propably a bit inaccurate about some ways of solving these dependency issues. You have commercial media and goverment's media. There's a
midpoint in existence, actually. At least in Finland we have, if you can call it such.
This it how it goes.
Goverment has made it a law that every single home that has a television inside, is required to pay a licence fee for that appratus. This fee is not
a tax, although it can be viewed as such. This fee goes to a media company that has a protection of goverment in that goverment deals with people who
do not pay. Fine is exactly the amount that has been left unpaid while not paying.
This is a forced pay, as even if you only watch commercial tv-channels, you are still entitled to pay a licence fee to a company that only runs two
totally free channels that have nothing to do with commercialism. It doesn't even matter if you only watch VCR/DVD, you cannot prove otherwise
anyway. (Believe me, this has been tried tens of times in court, with no avail.)
Goverment has absolutely no control on the budget of this company, and this company is in turn required to not make any money whatsoever while doing
its business. It can also do no profits, such is not allowed for this company. Goverment also has no control over what programs these channels will
broadcast, although normal laws are expected to be followed. At that, these two channels actually show more than commercial ones if we look at
cencorship on certain issues and age limits of programs. (In Finland, after certain time of day, its totally in parental responsibility to see that
kids don't watch programs and goverment responsibility stops there at that point.)
Usually, this company deals with their leadership themselves, although criticism from outside sources will monitor its doings at large. They pay for
their workers a normal salary, and expect them to be neutral and stay neutral on issues considering goverment's business. Every once in a while an ex
politican gets the job of CEO at that company, but that's not enough, as they do require a fitting education as well. After that point, this
politican is no longer allowed to stay as CEO (or elected as one in the company) if he/she continues doing politics.
We like this system, and do not want to get rid of it even if it makes competition a bit difficult for commercial companies. After all, this system
ensures that hell freezes over before politicans are allowed to be elected when all they do is shout slogans. Nobody gives a # about that kind of
advertising here, people want debate.
Obviously this system has its own flaws, there's no perfect system. My cincere hope is that our system prevents problems caused by totally commercial