Ai media che hanno richiesto 1,8 milioni di euro di sovvenzioni statali è stato chiesto di concentrarsi maggiormente sul cambiamento climatico e sull’ascesa del populismo
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news-media-applying-for-18m-state-grants-were-asked-to-consider-focusing-more-on-climate-change-and-rise-of-populism/a1369474080.html
di _FeckArseIndustries_
3 Comments
Regardless of what anyones politics are I find it uneasy that a government in any democratic country should be telling the media which topics to focus on and threatening to pull funding if there is no “return on investment”.
>So far under the scheme, RTÉ has been granted €720,000, Virgin Media €500,000, and Journal Media €231,500. The Irish Examiner, the Business Post and Reach Media, the publisher of the Irish Daily Star and Irish Daily Mirror, all received €100,000 each. Bauer Media, the German owner of Newstalk and Today FM, is to get €55,000.
>Members of the expert advisory group were said to have noted the importance of the criteria of “value of money” and “return on investment” for the final evaluations of the two applications.
>Aontú leader Peader Tobin told the Sunday Independent: “The idea that a government department is suggesting the agenda of a media organisation is quite shocking. It proves the adage that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Already in this country we have NGOs massively dependent on government funding. This dependency is a key part of the political media, political, NGO bubble at the heart of the administration. This is not healthy for democracy.”
>This included recommendations that the media groups consider “a more comprehensive approach to proposals regarding the Middle East and north Africa” and in the Golan Heights — “such as Irish citizens in Israel and Palestine”.
>The note said the expert group wanted “more emphasis on the wider topic of climate change” and this was to include COP, the UN decision-making body on climate issues.
>Experts said the media companies should consider “a focus on EU issues such as the rise of populism and disinformation”. Other recommendations were to consider new perspectives to approach coverage of St Patrick’s Day, the US elections and the “possibility of more emphasis” on the topic of the ‘Global South’, a loose term covering countries in Central and South America, Africa, Asia and elsewhere.
The devil is perhaps in the detail here. I think looking beyond our own borders in terms of reporting is no bad thing, as long the reporting is unbiased and accurate.
For instance bundling the rise of populism and disinformation together to imply causation would be a biased point of view and largely inaccurate. The rise of populism differs from state to state, many were motivated by corruption scandals in the wake of the 2008 crash (e.g. the rise of ANO in the Czech republic was in large part due to the 2013 Czech political corruption scandal).
Governments have legitimate reasons to fund and promote independent, well-researched publications on certain topics. This is especially true for issues of significant societal importance, and even more so when there are known external parties spreading proven misinformation on these subjects.
The key is transparency, which is clearly the case here. By openly supporting public news organizations to focus on critical issues, the government isn’t engaging in manipulation, but rather ensuring citizens have access to accurate, thoroughly researched information.
This approach helps combat misinformation while respecting journalistic independence – a crucial balance in maintaining a well-informed public discourse.