Understanding Sweden
-
So nothing wrong with having only one (government) source of information and having government being lead by the same social democratic political party for decades? Yep, that's the point of view I expect from you. p.s. What if it was the same situation with one single private media? Tomaz
Tomaž Štih wrote: So nothing wrong with having only one (government) source of information and having government being lead by the same social democratic political party for decades? Where did I say it was right? -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
-
BS. The reason why Sweden has been rules by same party is mostly due to the fact that we were untouched by WWII and have plenty of natural resources. This meant that post-WWII the swedish economy was doing extremely well. This wealth was "invested" into a *very* generous social-security system. When the rest of Europe caught up (or rather was rebuilt and their population in "productive" age got back to normal) it all went downhill. The politicians turned a blind eye to this fact which resulted in our current situation. According to the current polls there will be a change of power after the next election (2006), hopefully we will se some changes then (before it is to late). Regarding TV3 (not TR3) it's just cheap reality-shows and american tv-series. Mostly crap imho. AND you need cable or satelite-dish to see it. Not really an alternative. TV4, which is available to all viewers, are atleast somewhat better... And suddenly you realize / Nothing here is what it seems / You are beyond the looking glass / Like Alice and the red queen Red Queen, Funker Vogt
I totaly agree with this point of view. But it would be more difficult to pull this out have you had more media choice. Social problems don't appear out of nowhere, they accumulate; critical media helps with early detection. Critical media can also demand proof (results) of ideological policies, even when public appears to like them. Tomaz
-
Tomaž Štih wrote: So nothing wrong with having only one (government) source of information and having government being lead by the same social democratic political party for decades? Where did I say it was right? -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
Well, do you agree with me then? Tomaz
-
Well, do you agree with me then? Tomaz
How could I disagree with facts? I don't agree with the picture you're trying to draw of SVT. It's not the commie version of Fox, it's just that it's run (government) by a bunch of morons. -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
-
This is an interesting piece of information, which helps to understand why and how it could happen that Swedes were ruled by the same left political party 62 out of 70 years. The "model democracy" as the left calls it has in fact liberalized electronic media space only some 15 years ago, trailing even some of former communist countries. There was only goverment (so called "public") television available before; nothing else. First competition to goverment television (TR3) actually had to air into Sweden via satellite, and from London in 1987. And only in the early 90ties, during short change of political power, was first commercial television allowed to join the national terrestrial broadcasting network. Tomaz
So, why isn't it the same with Denmark? I think you confuse state owned with government controlled. I guess the Swedish structure is quite much like the Danish. And that means that if there was just the slightest hint of governmental influence on the programs, the opposition would be on it instantly. The state owned channels are controlled by some rules that ensures a broad perspective. "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
-
So nothing wrong with having only one (government) source of information and having government being lead by the same social democratic political party for decades? Yep, that's the point of view I expect from you. p.s. What if it was the same situation with one single private media? Tomaz
The Danish national television isn't Government controlled, and I strongly suspect that the Swedish is not either. Simply because the channel(s) are funded the way they are does not mean they spew biased pro-government propaganda to its viewers. If anything, these channels can afford to be much more objective and unbiased then similar private funded channels who have to take into account the opinions of their sponsers and advertisment companies. These are public service channels, and not subjected to the whims of various owners. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
-
So, why isn't it the same with Denmark? I think you confuse state owned with government controlled. I guess the Swedish structure is quite much like the Danish. And that means that if there was just the slightest hint of governmental influence on the programs, the opposition would be on it instantly. The state owned channels are controlled by some rules that ensures a broad perspective. "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
I agree. One can be in agreement with the way the channels are funded or not, however - the channels ensure much more open debate because their foundation can't be removed over night if they offend one of their primary backers. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
-
So nothing wrong with having only one (government) source of information and having government being lead by the same social democratic political party for decades? Yep, that's the point of view I expect from you. p.s. What if it was the same situation with one single private media? Tomaz
-
I totaly agree with this point of view. But it would be more difficult to pull this out have you had more media choice. Social problems don't appear out of nowhere, they accumulate; critical media helps with early detection. Critical media can also demand proof (results) of ideological policies, even when public appears to like them. Tomaz
-
That's exactly what I am talking about. The danger that public media is exploited by the state and lobbies. Public media then becomes a media that promotes one ideology but is paid by all citizen, even those who do not agree. This is interference of state in the democratic process; it means using taxpayer money to assure unfair political advantage of certain views. Italian system is beautiful example of this. It is also an environment where duopoly grew out of public television monopoly; this situation is similar throughout Europe. It is very rare that public media is exploited by the right, such as in Berlusconi's case. And that is the reason that leftists talk so much about Italy and so little about other places though very same duopoly exists in Sweden. Natural position of public media is for the big goverment and the nanny state because that is the ideology on which public media is founded. It has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with opinion that wise welfareists have to help the "public" understand the world that they themselves are not capable of. Natural bias of public media is towards reasons for its own existence and rationale for its financing. It is media to "prevent market failure" so behind it is belief in fictional "market failure". It is media to prevent "capitalist domination of media" so behind it is the ideology that there is something inherently wrong with freedom of speech of people who are more productive then average. Public media will not always support specific goverment, but it will always support specific policy. It will attack governments that do not pursuit this policy and use gloves with goverment that does. Tomaz
-
How could I disagree with facts? I don't agree with the picture you're trying to draw of SVT. It's not the commie version of Fox, it's just that it's run (government) by a bunch of morons. -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
I doubt that situation in Sweden is so different from situation in Germany or in Slovenia. From my experience there are easy ways to spot bias in European public media. This is through polls about themes that polarize public. If dominant majority shares one opinion then this is clear sign of brainwashing. For example, poll about support for president Bush or the Iraq war might show that the public equaly divided or it might show 90%+ people supporting leftist views of these events and people. The latter is a clear sign of deep bias in the country. Similar questions could be asked about neoliberalism, neoconservativism and other topics. Negative opinions about these soft topics by huge majority of people would be clear sign of brainwashing and bias. One could always say that this are opinions about events abroad but that public television is not biased when reporting about internal events. But anti-americanism in European public media has a task of protecting socialist dogmas internally. What happens in internal debates is that every classical liberal solution is opposed with slogans, such as "Europe is not America", which simply use results of such propaganda to stop non-socialist reforms. So anti-Americanism on public media is a sign of internal bias. p.s. In Germany opposition politicians don't protest against bias not because there would not be biased, but because its results are so devastating that protesting would mean their political suicide. And this was done by public media. I suspect that similar situation would exist in leftist country such as Sweden. Tomaz
-
The Danish national television isn't Government controlled, and I strongly suspect that the Swedish is not either. Simply because the channel(s) are funded the way they are does not mean they spew biased pro-government propaganda to its viewers. If anything, these channels can afford to be much more objective and unbiased then similar private funded channels who have to take into account the opinions of their sponsers and advertisment companies. These are public service channels, and not subjected to the whims of various owners. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
I can't see how these channels would be able to afford more objectivity. After all they are controlled by people who have their own interests (for example, keeping the control over public media) and I see no reason to doubt some people (those that create their own televisions) more then other (elites of public media). Typically these are non-market (political and academia) elites which are inherently biased and anti-market. This is fundamental bias of public television. Tomaz
-
I agree. One can be in agreement with the way the channels are funded or not, however - the channels ensure much more open debate because their foundation can't be removed over night if they offend one of their primary backers. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
Private channels ensure much more diversity because they compete for the viewer. The reason why this is so is exactly the same as the reason that private markets are better supplied then government controlled markets - free market performs optimal allocation. Private media will compete for mainstream viewer until market shares stabilize. Then they'll start moving into niche markets fulfilling the needs of minorities. This is clearly visible in United States where shows with bad viewership, that would be cancelled ten years ago are kept on the air. Public television does not need to do this. Since it has no market controls and its funding is independent (of reaching and satisfying the viewer) if can only do good allocation coincidentally. There is another trouble with public television. Public television is a major player in every Euro country. Potential competitor has to compete with TV which is commonly well funded from independent sources and does not need to care about the viewers. If public television has several thousand employees then the only way to compete on the market (against it) is by really huge initial investment. Due to huge entry condition only few players can enter and this leads to less choice for the viewer. It is very common in Europe for a state to only have two major players - public television(s) and one private television. Tomaz
-
I doubt that situation in Sweden is so different from situation in Germany or in Slovenia. From my experience there are easy ways to spot bias in European public media. This is through polls about themes that polarize public. If dominant majority shares one opinion then this is clear sign of brainwashing. For example, poll about support for president Bush or the Iraq war might show that the public equaly divided or it might show 90%+ people supporting leftist views of these events and people. The latter is a clear sign of deep bias in the country. Similar questions could be asked about neoliberalism, neoconservativism and other topics. Negative opinions about these soft topics by huge majority of people would be clear sign of brainwashing and bias. One could always say that this are opinions about events abroad but that public television is not biased when reporting about internal events. But anti-americanism in European public media has a task of protecting socialist dogmas internally. What happens in internal debates is that every classical liberal solution is opposed with slogans, such as "Europe is not America", which simply use results of such propaganda to stop non-socialist reforms. So anti-Americanism on public media is a sign of internal bias. p.s. In Germany opposition politicians don't protest against bias not because there would not be biased, but because its results are so devastating that protesting would mean their political suicide. And this was done by public media. I suspect that similar situation would exist in leftist country such as Sweden. Tomaz
Tomaž Štih wrote: I doubt that situation in Sweden is so different from situation in Germany or in Slovenia. I have no idea what it's like in Germany and Slovenia, but I assure you that SVT isn't pushing a socialistic agenda. Around the riksdag (swedish name for parliament), are several bodies whose job is to supervise the government, and instutitions under direct government control. These are lead mostly by the opposition, and I can tell you right now that, should SVT misbehave and do the sitting government's bidding, war would ensure in at least one of these bodies. Tomaž Štih wrote: For example, poll about support for president Bush or the Iraq war might show that the public equaly divided or it might show 90%+ people supporting leftist views of these events and people. The latter is a clear sign of deep bias in the country. All polls are made by several independent groups, of which only one is appointed by the government. I follow these often, as I like to see what the current political climate is. (Favorable right now. If there's an election tomorrow, there will be a change of powers). These polls are almost always statistically close to eachother. I suppose when they differ, they've managed to sample radically different populations. But I have yet to see any "there is only one party!"-pattern. I've only witnessed the decline of the left... Tomaž Štih wrote: But anti-americanism in European public media has a task of protecting socialist dogmas internally. You know, I have yet to see an anti-american report in the media (state owned or not). Well, sure, there are left wing as well as right wing media, who like to spin things. But the serious news media, don't go about pitching the US as the ultimate decadence. I would say Sweden is quite US-friendly. But on another note, I've seen reporters in various media favoring the Palestines in the West Bank/Gaza conflict. That said, I've yet to see anyone accepting terrorism. Tomaž Štih wrote: In Germany opposition politicians don't protest against bias not because there would not be biased, but because its results are so devastating that protesting would mean their political suicide. And this was done by public media. I suspect that similar situation would exist in leftist country such as Sweden. Protests occur frequently. From both sides. And it heats up exponentially closer to election day. I don't kno
-
That's exactly what I am talking about. The danger that public media is exploited by the state and lobbies. Public media then becomes a media that promotes one ideology but is paid by all citizen, even those who do not agree. This is interference of state in the democratic process; it means using taxpayer money to assure unfair political advantage of certain views. Italian system is beautiful example of this. It is also an environment where duopoly grew out of public television monopoly; this situation is similar throughout Europe. It is very rare that public media is exploited by the right, such as in Berlusconi's case. And that is the reason that leftists talk so much about Italy and so little about other places though very same duopoly exists in Sweden. Natural position of public media is for the big goverment and the nanny state because that is the ideology on which public media is founded. It has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with opinion that wise welfareists have to help the "public" understand the world that they themselves are not capable of. Natural bias of public media is towards reasons for its own existence and rationale for its financing. It is media to "prevent market failure" so behind it is belief in fictional "market failure". It is media to prevent "capitalist domination of media" so behind it is the ideology that there is something inherently wrong with freedom of speech of people who are more productive then average. Public media will not always support specific goverment, but it will always support specific policy. It will attack governments that do not pursuit this policy and use gloves with goverment that does. Tomaz
Tomaž Štih wrote: It is very rare that public media is exploited by the right It is very rare private media is exploited by the left. By itself, private media doesn't guarantee there will be several views proposed to the audience. When these media are owned by a few tycoons who share the same interests, the audience is as manipulated as in a totally state-controlled system. Private channels manipulate their audience too, and with no democratic control (when public channels are often supervized by a government-independent counsil). Only the mix of both systems can lead to a mix of views. Tomaž Štih wrote: Natural bias of public media is towards reasons for its own existence and rationale for its financing. Natural bias of private media is towards reasons for its own existence and rationale for its financing.
- Not a substitute for human interaction -
-
I can't see how these channels would be able to afford more objectivity. After all they are controlled by people who have their own interests (for example, keeping the control over public media) and I see no reason to doubt some people (those that create their own televisions) more then other (elites of public media). Typically these are non-market (political and academia) elites which are inherently biased and anti-market. This is fundamental bias of public television. Tomaz
They can afford more objectivity, because they don't answer to the government simply because they are funded via legislation and not privately funded. They don't - like a privately owned network - have to cater to sponsors or the owners who each run their own private agenda. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
-
They can afford more objectivity, because they don't answer to the government simply because they are funded via legislation and not privately funded. They don't - like a privately owned network - have to cater to sponsors or the owners who each run their own private agenda. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
That tells nothing of objectivity. It just tells that self sustained elites can develop there using taxpayers money instead of their own to promote their agenda; and that they are not responsible to the viewer. It is much more objective to be responsible to the viewer. Private media is responsible to the viewer. They only make money if they attract the audience so they have to follow their desires. Public media is not; they are responsible to their political sponsors only. Tomaz
-
Tomaž Štih wrote: It is very rare that public media is exploited by the right It is very rare private media is exploited by the left. By itself, private media doesn't guarantee there will be several views proposed to the audience. When these media are owned by a few tycoons who share the same interests, the audience is as manipulated as in a totally state-controlled system. Private channels manipulate their audience too, and with no democratic control (when public channels are often supervized by a government-independent counsil). Only the mix of both systems can lead to a mix of views. Tomaž Štih wrote: Natural bias of public media is towards reasons for its own existence and rationale for its financing. Natural bias of private media is towards reasons for its own existence and rationale for its financing.
- Not a substitute for human interaction -
It is not true that free media market does not guarantee that there will be several views proposed to the audience. As soon as there is audience that desires certain views, there is opporunity for private media to exploit it and it will be exploited. What is true is that political propaganda will not be a matter of controling government media anymore. Instead one will have to promote his own views with his own means which is what fair play is all about. Find people for your idea, convince them and then promote it rather then force people to contribute so that you can promote it. It is a matter of convincing versus forcing people. Market is a competitive game; the results throughout the world and especially in the United States prove that there is absolutely no proof that market would in any way fail here. There is, however, plenty of proof, that public media distorts the market. What amuses me is your overall message, that "the right and liberals should sponsor the left, because the left is not capable of financially surviving by itself." Tomaz
-
Private channels ensure much more diversity because they compete for the viewer. The reason why this is so is exactly the same as the reason that private markets are better supplied then government controlled markets - free market performs optimal allocation. Private media will compete for mainstream viewer until market shares stabilize. Then they'll start moving into niche markets fulfilling the needs of minorities. This is clearly visible in United States where shows with bad viewership, that would be cancelled ten years ago are kept on the air. Public television does not need to do this. Since it has no market controls and its funding is independent (of reaching and satisfying the viewer) if can only do good allocation coincidentally. There is another trouble with public television. Public television is a major player in every Euro country. Potential competitor has to compete with TV which is commonly well funded from independent sources and does not need to care about the viewers. If public television has several thousand employees then the only way to compete on the market (against it) is by really huge initial investment. Due to huge entry condition only few players can enter and this leads to less choice for the viewer. It is very common in Europe for a state to only have two major players - public television(s) and one private television. Tomaz
Tomaž Štih wrote: Private channels ensure much more diversity because they compete for the viewer. The reason why this is so is exactly the same as the reason that private markets are better supplied then government controlled markets - free market performs optimal allocation. Very amusing. All the private channels I have access to shows crap. Endless rehearsals of Navy CSI, Jackass, and Oprah. I clearly remember a 'documentary' that was shown on one of the channels. It was about plastic surgery, and it produced a flattering image of the business and the starring clinic in particular. It turned out that the 'documentary' was produced by the owner of the clinic and that the channel got paid to send it. The owner is under run these days, fleeing from punishment for serious malpractice. Tomaž Štih wrote: If public television has several thousand employees then the only way to compete on the market (against it) is by really huge initial investment. Due to huge entry condition only few players can enter and this leads to less choice for the viewer. I got 30 channels to pick from, and besides watching a bit Discovery, I hardly ever switch from our national channels. I really don't want to spend my sparetime watching dr. Phil and Co. "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
-
That tells nothing of objectivity. It just tells that self sustained elites can develop there using taxpayers money instead of their own to promote their agenda; and that they are not responsible to the viewer. It is much more objective to be responsible to the viewer. Private media is responsible to the viewer. They only make money if they attract the audience so they have to follow their desires. Public media is not; they are responsible to their political sponsors only. Tomaz
Tomaž Štih wrote: That tells nothing of objectivity. It just tells that self sustained elites can develop there using taxpayers money instead of their own to promote their agenda; and that they are not responsible to the viewer. They are very much responsible to the viewer. There are rules they must follow. Tomaž Štih wrote: It is much more objective to be responsible to the viewer. Private media is responsible to the viewer. They only make money if they attract the audience so they have to follow their desires. And that is why private media can't be objective: they constantly have to please the viewer. People really don't want facts, they want news that solidifies their world view. "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr