In other words, they are all liberal. Any station that is not liberal is considered biased.It secures a much less biased station than the privately owned ones as we see so many times in the states
In other words, they are all liberal. Any station that is not liberal is considered biased.It secures a much less biased station than the privately owned ones as we see so many times in the states
I'm more libertarian leaning. The less the government tells me what to do and leaves me be to live my life, the more I'm apreciative of it. I can see how your not though, I doubt that's a common view to hold in Europe. It's only recently becoming more of a popular view in the U.S.
"propaganda issues only applies to dictatorships or other non-functioning democraties."
According to google, " information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." I can see many examples of that in functioning democracies if that's your definition of propaganda.
Oh you mean just like Trump and CNN being fake news?
You are right we are far more liberal (although liberal means something entirely different here in Denmark than it does to you) here than you are as a whole. Your Democrats are sort of in the center of our political spectrum - perhaps a bit to the right even.
Of course there's no denying that the state funded media (and any privately owned ones as well) is a mirror of the culture it is from (ours being more left/liberal than yours) that's a level of bias no one can avoid.
- Trusty
Here in Denmark, the liberal parties are on the political right... so that statement make little sense.
Fact is some new stations try to be objective and neutral. The danish TV news are an example of this.
(And you got the same in some other European countries)
And then you got US news stations (on both sides of the political spectrum) and they are all biased and can basically claim anything.
Even our (biased) newspapers can't do that... since there are journalistic standards they need to follow.
(unlike in the US)
Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard
You are correct - I didn't say we don't have propaganda, I said it is not part of state funded broadcasters such as the BBC or DR - yes you will be able to find examples of programming that could be considered as such but the key there is to look at it as a whole. You will then find other programs that could be considered biased towards the other side.
- Trusty
USA General of the Army
BBC = BENNY HILL.
(Comedy done right before the corruption of the PC Blight.)
In case you didn't notice from my profile, I'll inform you I'm not from Denmark and I'm using the American definition of the word liberal. Somehow I think you already knew that.Here in Denmark, the liberal parties are on the political right... so that statement make little sense.
USA General of the Army
I'm sure glad NPR isn't our biggest news provider. They still have people in charge. They still have decision-makers with their own strong opinions pandering to entrenched ideas under the guise of decorum while advancing their agenda.
Do people not vote with their viewership of private networks? My real beef is when we have to subsidize it. Or when they find sneaky ways of subsidizing themselves. When I went to a large university, for example, the state-funded school purchased ten thousand copies of the NY Times a day. Most copies stayed in the paper dispensers around campus (free with a student ID) except for big headline days where people wanted a memento. Few people used them and at the end of the night you could take as many as your heart desired to help pack things which I did because I sold stuff online. The NY Times was an otherwise struggling paper which I do believe sold for $1 (the entire paper did, not a copy) not too long ago.
I would say the absence of bias is an illusion at best. The natural state of things is competing ideas presenting their argument because there are very different viewpoints that have little-to-nothing in common anymore. You might have a problem once it comes to appear that it's not. Over there it often looks like two flavors of the same thing. Look at the pre-Civil War era in the U.S.. You typically had one Democrat and one Republican (or the equivalent) paper in every town. Many modern newspapers (the surviving ones) are combined. Where I live it's the "Republican & Herald." Which used to be two competing papers. The editorial boards often endorse candidates and they're pretty darn predictable about it as well. You wouldn't know it by the mundane things they usually report on unless you possess a trained eye.
Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 11-15-2018 at 09:05 PM.
Gameplay Suggestions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjUuaVXTJsY
Old Pennsylvania Discord: https://discord.gg/MjxfZ5n