Why State Broadcasting Is Immoral, Part 2

Would you tolerate a state-owned press?

Let's say that at some point in the early 19th. century, in an effort to ensure 'remote state control' of the emerging trade of journalism and the press, the largest printing presses have been seized and placed under formal state ownership, as the British News Company.  The country's largest newspaper is now to become a 'public sector newspaper', called British News, with a mission to 'inform, educate and entertain' the public: the essence of 'public service journalism'.

The government appoints a governing Board for British News and also approves the appointment of its editorial staff and even some senior journalists.  Interestingly, the government also decides that instead of funding British News through a mixture of a cover price, advertising and subscriptions, as would be usual, the newspaper will instead be distributed freely and the public will be required to pay an annual fee for a Newspaper Licence, mandatory for anybody who buys or reads any newspaper.  This Newspaper Licence funds British News, together with some grant money out of general taxation.  The government realises that this method of funding will assist its objective of controlling British News and allow it to exert some indirect influence over 'private' newspapers, some of which will also have 'public service journalism' obligations imposed on them.  

Over the years and decades, British News becomes a massive operation, with a huge headquarters in central London, and inevitably attracts the best talent.  Its newspaper becomes very popular and British News gradually develops into a large media conglomerate, with various different newspapers and other types of news publications and publishing ventures.

Problems develop.  British News employs journalists who tend to be university arts graduates and who mainly enjoy urban living and tend to have modish views, and this in reflected in evident biases, which seem to be towards Leftist and metropolitan viewpoints.  This bias problem gradually becomes more and more serious and it becomes increasingly clear that the viewpoints of British News are completely out-of-touch with the general public.  Occasionally, senior people within British News admit there is a problem (often only following retirement). Instead of addressing the problem, British News turns in on itself and degenerates into essentially a propaganda outlet.

Another issue is that anybody who refuses to pay for a Newspaper Licence and is caught reading or in possession of a newspaper or any other British News publication - including books - faces being prosecuted and fined, and even imprisoned if they do not pay the fine.  British News initially enforces the Newspaper Licence itself.  In addition to inspectors who tour homes and look around parks and other spaces for Newspaper Readers and Book Readers, inspectors also have at their disposal specially-made Fluorescent Detector Binoculars that can be used to detect certain metallic compounds used in the manufacture of paper and thus identify newspapers and books at unlicensed homes or premises.  The efficacy of these devices is considered suspect, but their use is adverted in propaganda issued by British News.  Eventually British News contracts the enforcement out to an American company, HardEnforce, Inc., who use ruthless tactics and tell lies.

Initially, few people question the system, but eventually it starts to be resented and eventually the notion of needing to have a Newspaper Licence looks ridiculous.  Even so, most people continue to conform, if only out of fear and habit, and the Newspaper Licence is defended by MPs in Parliament as "a bad system, but the least worst option".

With the emergence of radio in the early 20th. century, questions about the relevancy of a Newspaper Licence become urgent.  Critics argue that there is no need for British News to be publicly-owned and it should be privatised and required to operate in the same way as any other newspaper.  The defenders of British News point to its high-quality output and the high readership figures and say that British News is a much-loved national institution.  Opponents point out that the existence of a state media outlet in a time of radio, numerous other quality newspapers, mass literacy, international travel and diversity of opinion is completely ridiculous.  They also make the more subtle point that while we have private companies, local authorities, sometimes the police and other public bodies, issuing their own ‘news sheets’, these are regarded for what they are and there is no pretence otherwise.  They can impart useful information, but nobody treats them as serious ‘news’.  British News, on the other hand, presents itself as impartial when it plainly isn't and can't be.  Given that British News cannot live up to its mission, it needs to go.