Scientific American

    • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s why I suggested multiple levels of oversight. Also, they kept their funding.

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They did, because Mr. Rogers defended it. If he hadn’t been there to step up it likely would have been cut.

        That’s the problem. You get one party in power who doesn’t like it for some reason, it’s gone.

        • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          What you’ve shown is the system -democracy - working as intended. I’m not sure how that’s a criticism.

          That’s the problem. You get one party in power who doesn’t like it for some reason, it’s gone.

          except your “evidence” proves the exact opposite.

          • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Kinda like how Reagan removed the fairness doctrine… Oh, sure, any ol’ President could have it restored… 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Obama, 2+ years of Biden… Hey, it’s only been since 1987… 36 years… I’m sure it will be back any day now…

              • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                My argument is that anything the government grants you can also be taken away… and if the counter is “But it can be restored too…”

                Yeah, still waiting on the Fairness Doctrine, which, yeah, also has a direct impact on journalism.

                • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  My argument is that anything the government grants you can also be taken away… and if the counter is “But it can be restored too…”

                  it’s easy to win your own arguments when you put words in my mouth. why even bother pretending to have a debate when all you want is to put on a performance?

                  you can wallow in defeatist nihilism. I have better things to do.

        • theodewere@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          this is why we protect the speech and the journalism… it’s like the whole vaccine argument all over again…

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It depends entirely on how the funding arrangement is enshrined. Some mechanisms are easier to undo and some are practically impossible to undo.

      So while you could say that nothing in our world is guaranteed, it’s going too far to say we shouldn’t have publicly funded media because any old president can just snap his fingers and make it all go away. That’s not the case.

      And even if funding were easy to pull, that would mean no public media until someone else snaps their fingers and restores it.

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Kinda like how Reagan removed the fairness doctrine… Oh, sure, any ol’ President could have it restored… 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Obama, 2+ years of Biden… Hey, it’s only been since 1987… 36 years… I’m sure it will be back any day now…