I find it ironic that Fox News so beloved by right wing Americans because it is soooooo patriotic and for the American Way of Life is owned by an Australian who dictates its stance totally as he does all of his worldwide media outlets excepting those T.V. stations that that he owns in the U.K. where by law stations must present a balanced reporting of the news.
No doubt the right wing Americans would see this as an affront to their freedom of speech.
It’s not that countries can’t have a state broadcaster, it’s that private companies who do lots of business with governments can’t also own things like NBC. Conflict of interest and what have you. It’s the sort of arrangement you see in banana republics and tinpot little dictatorships but not in democracies, as a general rule.
I’m not retracting anything. Do you honestly think that companies doing business with governments would be allowed to own chunks of the media in those countries? You don’t think that would create a whole bunch of ethical/conflict of interest problems?
Why wouldn’t they?
Of course it would. Why would that stop them from being allowed to do so?
Can I use this as my sig? Please?
Well, as Muffin showed you, in Canada, at least, companies doing business with the government are allowed to own chunks of the media. As elucidator pointed out, in Italy, somebody who owns chunks of the Italian media is Prime Minister.
It undoubtedly does cause ethical problems, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
Why wouldn’t it?
Go right ahead. 
Where has he shown that? Media concentration rules aren’t the same thing.
I can agree things are a little different in Italy but Berlusconi only owns media companies. He doesn’t do business with the state outside that.
Because it never has before. All governments are on the take to some degree or another. For instance, I find it hard to believe that the best people our PM could think of to oversee the Environment portfolio were a self-confessed free-market Libertarian and her minor-domo, a creationist who was formerly the head of the Canadian chapter of Focus on the Family. I’m also reminded of Bush’s attempt to sabotage the EPA by giving it to someone hostile to its mission.
Wow, what a moonbat.
What, who, me?
Heavens no – the Dick. Ranks right up there with Handy.
Well . . . better him than me! But I think he’s just stubborn.
He showed that when he pointed out:
So, you have a company, BCE, which both contracts with the Canadian government and owns Canadian media; major Canadian media, in fact.
That information is actually out of date. BCE sold the majority of their stock in CTVglobemedia in 2006-2007, and now only owns like 15 percent of it. The current controlling interest is the Woodbridge Company, the guys who own Thompson Reuters. But the selloff was a business decision and not due to any regulatory requirements.
Sorry, I was not up to date. I should have been more clear about the history and percentage of ownership – I had totally forgotten about the transaction. Thanks for the correction.
15 or 20 percent holdings? I don’t know which, but 20 percent it was a figure that popped up in one of my truly bizzarre divorce cases. My client had invested a lot of his wife’s savings for her in BCE and a lot of his savings in his own re-broadcast company. BCE went uppity up up, while his re-broadcast company tanked. So naturally in their long-running divorce, she claimed that the return on BCE was too low, that BCE was having such a hard go of it that it had to let go of 80 percent of it’s media holdings, and that his re-broadcast company was worth a fortune. Just when we thought it couldn’t get any more whacky, one of his previous business partners started making applications to the CRTC using his licence. And then when once again when we thought it could not get even more whacky, some lawyer from out of province (his wife went through a few lawyers) arrived at the wrong law office and threw a conniption fit – hollering at the top of his lungs at the receptionist. It all eventually went my client’s way, but took an eight year court fight of dealing with one truly stupid point after another stupid point.
I wonder if his ex and the moonbat would hit it off together.
It’s this last bit that makes the story hysterical.
OK, I stand corrected, there is another democracy that allows government contractors to buy media companies. I should try reading what people write.
Now get off your ass and provide proof of your amended assertion that all democracies other that the USA and Canada ban government contractors from owning media companies. So far you have not come up with one, let alone all.
Put up or shut up, Dick.
Actually such a ban should exist. It is clear that the pressure of networks impacts the reporting. On Fox, every newsreader on TV uses the same buzzwords all day long. It is not coincidence. It is not reporting and they should run a disclaimer across the screen saying they are presenting Fox corporate bias instead of news.