Comment by embedding-shape
2 days ago
Absolutely not, no one claimed so either, and frankly, why continue discussing with you when you don't seem to be curious about a honest and straightforward conversation? Screw that noise.
Normally, in democratic countries, you have a process for changing laws. Enshrine your public media in those, or even better, in the constitution, and you've pretty much protected it short-term at least. Add in foundations or whatever concepts your country have, to add more layers of indirection, and it's even more protected.
You can really see how well such system works by observing USA right now.
Only way you could have any form of public financing of such endeavor without conflict of interest is to have multinational organization funded by every country.
Or you end up with BBC.
EDIT: to elaborate even further - you didn't even address the problem that ones designing this system would have to work against their own best interest. just wishy-washed that part away.
I'd say the US is a pretty shit example, given it's run by corporations right now, and lacks a judicial arm of the government that actually enforces the country's own laws. But to each and their own.
Again, with an open mind, go out and read about how publicly funded media works outside of the US (and UK, since you seemingly have a set mind about BBC too), and there is a whole rooster of different methods for funding these kind of things, yet letting them be independent. Some of these institutions are over 100 year old, yet still independent.
I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out how they made that work :)
>made it work
More like made it dysfunctional - i live in EU btw
Laws are system made by people who live within that system - it is a part of resource distribution system. Lawmakers do work in their own interest, and so far the only way we found to make a system work for benefit of everyone is by putting those vested interests at odds - hence non-bipartisan democracy.
This is basically a game theory problem, and when faced with prisoner dilemma you're saying 'it would all work if everyone chose to cooperate' If your solution to political problem is 'if only everyone did X' you don't have a solution but wishful thinking. Sure this can happen, but it is not a stable system, not one that can be moved from place A to B.
You keep saying i have set mind about those issues - yet you refuse to address underlying logical assumption by saying that (non-distinct) X made it work, without even providing an example of working solution - i don't think it's me who's arguing in bad faith here.