![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
grassangel[Error: unknown template qotd]
I do think that if the media is government owned/funded, they do have the right to say what is acceptable to air and what requirements the media needs to fulfil. Like having a certain amount of locally produced programming for example.
However, I don't think cutting funding because they're a neutral news source or demanding unreasonable results is exactly the right way to go about owning something that is THE NATION'S NEW SOURCE IN TIMES OF EMERGENCY. *looks pointedly at the National government and their plans to cut funding to National radio*
Privately owned media companies do have the right to pretty much say what they want though, provided their Boards don't object. I do think however, that with that freedom, they should be as informative as possible. Not neutral, which applies to the government funded/owned media, but informative. (The Government funded/owned media somehow needs to be both informative AND neutral, but this is talking ideal here.)
Are there any situations where media should be censored... no. Absolutely not. Information is good, information should never be STRAINED of all particulates.
And for something entirely different and much more lighthearted – minus a completed webcomic about a girl who can talk to ghosts and do anything you can imagine.
I have also learnt that Sky's UKTV actually IS somewhat partially owned by the BBC. Which answers my general ponderance of why they're branding every BBC program so very throughly with 'BBC'. (The stuff you learn from TVTropes...)
I do think that if the media is government owned/funded, they do have the right to say what is acceptable to air and what requirements the media needs to fulfil. Like having a certain amount of locally produced programming for example.
However, I don't think cutting funding because they're a neutral news source or demanding unreasonable results is exactly the right way to go about owning something that is THE NATION'S NEW SOURCE IN TIMES OF EMERGENCY. *looks pointedly at the National government and their plans to cut funding to National radio*
Privately owned media companies do have the right to pretty much say what they want though, provided their Boards don't object. I do think however, that with that freedom, they should be as informative as possible. Not neutral, which applies to the government funded/owned media, but informative. (The Government funded/owned media somehow needs to be both informative AND neutral, but this is talking ideal here.)
Are there any situations where media should be censored... no. Absolutely not. Information is good, information should never be STRAINED of all particulates.
And for something entirely different and much more lighthearted – minus a completed webcomic about a girl who can talk to ghosts and do anything you can imagine.
I have also learnt that Sky's UKTV actually IS somewhat partially owned by the BBC. Which answers my general ponderance of why they're branding every BBC program so very throughly with 'BBC'. (The stuff you learn from TVTropes...)
