RULE 1: IF YOU VISIT THIS COMMUNITY, YOU MUST POST BEFORE LEAVING!!
The Lemmy equivalent of r/195 on Reddit. Not officially affiliated (yet).
Any moderators from the reddit can have mod here, just ask.
There's another 196 over on [email protected]
Most people use the Blahaj.zone one so this place isn't very active.
ALL HAIL LORD SPRONKUS!!!
"Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the track of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened." - Dwight D. Eisenhower 1945
The image is a black and white photo of a large pile of human skulls and bones in front of a barbed-wire fence.
With the power of generative AI and MAGA chucklefucks, now some bastard will just claim its a deepfake or a deepstate.
It sucks, and we're not ready for it.
One reason we know that the moon landings were real is that the technology to fake them simply didn't exist in the 1960s. They didn't even have video tape back then, let alone computer graphics. Add to that the fact that almost everybody in the US got their news from one of 3 TV networks, or from newspapers that actually cared about and could afford to do real journalism. That means that when people saw the moon landings they knew they were witnessing something real. It was unfortunately also easy to cover up real things (like MK Ultra) when you only had to deal with 3 TV networks.
These days, especially for Americans, there are no authoritative sources of truth. (Australia has ABC, Britain has BBC, Canada has CBC, but the US has no not-for-profit news source that doesn't have to worry about pleasing advertisers). Add to that that every kind of media is subject to "deepfakes" and other kinds of manipulation.
And, this now affects historical events. When people in 1969 witnessed the moon landing, almost nobody thought it was fake. In 1969 it would have been relatively easy to remove almost any doubts anybody might have. But, memories are faulty and it's so easy to create fake evidence, that now even people who were alive and watching it live when the moon landing happened are now starting to doubt it.
In courts, we require evidence of various kinds because we know how unreliable people's memories are. But, it feels like we're heading for a future where your own memories may be more reliable than any research you're able to do. And, we're just not ready for that post-truth world.
Uhm... PBS/NPR exists and is frequently cited as the most trustworthy outlets.
That's not the same at all.
Your stipulation was non-profit news that is trustworthy. How does PBS/NPR not meet that definition?
Despite Public Radio being creates by an act of congress, good old Ronnie Reagan slashed it funding in 1980. Currently, it gets ~25% of its funding from the government, but only a fraction of that is direct funding. Most funding comes through member stations getting funding from state or Federal sources, or from state funded universities. That means it needs corporate or nonprofit sponsors that can impact the incentives of a media organization.
PBS gets a bigger chunk, ~40% if it's funding from State, Federal, and educational sources. Still more dependent on external funding, such as corporate advertising, than internal.
My "stipulation"? It's really weird of you to consider what I said as a "stipulation", rather than simply a description.
In any case, how does PBS/NPR not meet that description?
The BBC earns £5 billion per year in revenue. On the news side, it generates 120 hours of radio and TV output per day, and employs over 5000 journalists, including 50 different foreign news bureaus. It's the world's largest broadcast news organization. Canada's CBC has a budget of approx $1.38 billion in CAD. CBC's news operation is the largest news gathering operation in Canada and includes a 24 hour news network. Australia's ABC has about a $1b/year budget, but in Australia news is split between two public broadcasters, SBS and ABC. Those two are the most trusted news sources in Australia, with the BBC as the 4th most trusted. The most trusted private network is ranked 5th.
If the US wanted something similar in its media landscape, it would have to have a budget of at least $10 billion, or $40b if it were to have a footprint similar to the BBC. How does that compare to the actual budgets of PBS and NPR? PBS is at well under $1b total, NPR is at only $250m Of that, the total government contribution between the two of them is $500m.
In every other major English-speaking country, the public broadcaster is the main source, and the most trusted source of news. They have significant budgets that they use to employ huge numbers of journalists. BBC, in particular, has such an immense news organization that it has a huge worldwide footprint, not just one local to the UK.
NPR and PBS just don't compare. They may "exist", but just barely.
Start voting for democrats if you want our PBS/NPR to get funded. Start donating just $5 a month. Start communicating with others about the importance of congressional protection and funding of these services.
My grandmother was on the ship that picked up the capsule from the first moon landing.
AI Generated Daguerreotype