wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

And BTW, while there's no evidence of any government news organization in the world that doesn't produce slanted news, we have PROOF that a privately funded news org can produce news and public affairs without bias or slant.

CSPAN

Not perfect. But better and non biased than anything government anywhere in the world has produced

Given the political non-starter status of Prof. Bollinger's idea, perhaps a world news service modeled on WNYC (subscriber funded) would be a better way to go.

Dear "Taher from Croton on Hudson"

Fox news is terrible, just like the other dumbed-down cable channels. And also network channels.

Stop making assumptions about people. I'm political, and I accept that people will not keep their political desires in check. And THAT'S why a government radio network is so dangerous.

Government is too powerful. Gov has the power to coerce and tax the people. to tax and coerce corporations. to out spend and out compete the private sector, thereby destroying private enterprise.

There's a capital strike now---for a reason. Too much gov investment scares away private investment.

That will happen with the news business. Look at the BBC. Why do you think there's a feeding frenzy among the liberal media over news corp right now. a dead give away.

Yes Gary from Queens, we need more Fox News.
More right wing, idiot, dumb, fantasy what ever for dumb people.

The liberals are having a field day (like each day) on BL. Not a conservative voice to be found.

3 problems with Bolenger's idiotic idea:

1. A government news agency would attract political hacks with political agendas. (BBC)

2. there's no longer a dividing line between news and entertainment. there will be "drama's" carrying an editorial (BBC)

3. The idea is the same altruistic fantasy that fuels liberal faith in biog powerful government. He even used the term "public good" and "public education". How many parents stuck in public schools consider it a "public good"? The Framers warned us the government doesn't know better than the people, and couldn't identify the truth if it hit them in the face.

When Bollenger said that NPR is an example of good unbiased journalism, he should have been dragged off the show for lack of credibility. indeed, he would have been laughed off other radio shows. But hey, this is NPR after all.

What a great idea. May be NPR will become a stellar reporter of international news. Certainly an improvement from what is now, parochial, badly reported, uninformed and out and out dumb.

LOL! Ivy League tuition only covers a small fraction of your expenses!

ROFLMAO! Tuition has increased at some giant multiple of the inflation rate over the past twenty years.

Professors and bureacrats there get giant salaries and do little work, while students come out with hundreds of thousands in student loan debt.

The prestige value of these diplomas keeps going up, so they keep raising the tuition, because they can.

Every time I go overseas, I see "RT" on the hotel satellite TV. It's entire mission is to discredit the US--they can cover a kitten being rescued from a tree with an anti-American slant.

I think a US based news service that was more credible than the competition would reflect well on the culture, intellectual standards, and credibility of the US in general.

Every time I go overseas, I see "RT" on the hotel satellite TV. It's entire mission is to discredit the US--they can cover a kitten being rescued from a tree with an anti-American slant.

I think a US based news service that was more credible than the competition would reflect well on the culture, intellectual standards, and credibility of the US in general.

From wikipedia, evidence that Bollinger is not fully committed to the public interest, the public good--Columbia U. has not been a good neighbor:
"The Bollinger administration's expansion plans have been criticized as fundamentally incompatible with the 197/a plan for development crafted by the community, and for failing to address the neighborhood's need to maintain affordable housing stock. President Bollinger has lived in the Columbia President's House since February 2004, after the building underwent a $23 million renovation. In 2008, his salary was $1.7 million.

In November 2006, Bollinger was elected to the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York City, a term lasting for three years"

@ yourgo

I agree! I find many viewpoints and editorial bents represented on PBS/NPR that I have a problem with. It's absurd when the right tries to paint PBS/NPR as being "liberal". They don't lie and distort like FOX to push the agenda of one political party.

I'm really tired of that hypocritical accusation.

What a moronic idea Mr Bollinger bringsforth. He wants another propaganda tool for the US but this time with a patina of independence. What would happen if such a world news station happened to favorably review the Goldstone Report? They'd have their funds cut by congress, thats what. Mr Bollinger should know from the pressure put upon him at his invite of Mr Ahmadinejad (spelling?) to Columbia where he was forced to turn rude and uncivil by Columbias knee-jerk pro-Israel alumni.

Tsk, tsk......Brian.

Too soft on this guy.
You never really asked him why we need to do this and what his REAL agenda is.

We already have public broadcasting...as other listeners have posted.

Questions:
1. "The Mighty Wurlitzer".....American media's long history with the CIA. Credibility issues?

2. Funding source? Corporate sponsors such as Koch? Oil? Will America ever have a proper deliberation over funding model for our media?

I don't think the US needs yet another way of supporting its own imperial agenda world-wide, especially if, as Bollinger says, the "free market" remains the basis for our belief in free speech.
This sounds like just another neoliberal scheme from a corporate, and aloof, elite.

Why is NPR BBC PBS considered liberal media. Do they fully support the views of one party the way FOX does? Do they lie to promote ideas of a certain party the way FOX does.? Do they hold rallies for one party the way FOX does? NO.

The idea of a true liberal media is a myth. There is only Right Wing Republican Propoganda Media. Everything else is just trying to do jourmalism and is doing it poorly at that. Except NPR and PBS.

Hey Bollinger we ALREADY have it. It's called NPR and PBS. Just fund them more with Govt money and we have what this nimbit is calling for

I'm sorry but this is nonsense. The problem with journalism is not a lack of quantity. The problem is paradigmatic — the way that journalism frames the world. The false objectivity. The narrow, context-less, narrative -based stories. Having another behemoth news service is not a solution.

Emphasize how BBC is free from Gvt control and also able to comment on it. Separation of press from Gvt control is more important that the church/state issue by a mile.

I hope you'll discuss the CIA and USAID's involvement in print as well as broadcast media, at least we know in the past. The publisher of Praeger publishing testified to this before the Church committee in the early 1970s.

No one has yet mentioned Russia Today - the English language Russian government channel.

On the Media recently compared how several state-run owned broadcasters treated various topics - like the death of Bin Laden.

Looks like the liberal media will run this thing. Brian mentioned PBS, NPR, BBC...

So...where is the funding going to come from? Quite frankly the United States isn't economically successful enough for this kind of project. This isn't the 1960s.

The news servive is already in place. It's called NPR. It just needs to be broadcast worldwide.

There is just too much irony here that Bollinger cites Xinhua (the propaganda arm of the oppressive Chinese government that scrubs the news clean of "offensive news") and Al Jazeera (the Islamist instigator posing as news that has notoriously played favorites) as his models.
LOL.....Brian, please ask this guy why a free press (free from government control)needs the government to fund it.
Brian, please be at least a LITTLE incredulous!!!!

Why am I skeptical about Bollinger.....whose name is on the 2 crucial 2003 Supreme Court cases that sanctified legal racial bias and ethnic profiling in college admissions (against high achieving Asians, Jews and poor whites)......in now applying his "vision" to freedom of the press for "a new century". His vision will be politically correct, to be sure, and the devil will be in the details. This is VERY dangerous stuff.