What profound moral problem are you talking about? If you take your point even further, you could argue there’s a moral problem with forcing people who are distrusting of or despise the government to pay taxes at all, but it’s generally agreed that the health of a country in part does depend on revenues generated by taxes (since you need money to pay for things that benefit many people, like roads, public transit, etc.).
Yeah, the morality of taxation and the role of the state is a deep topic that has been debated for thousands of years.
Nearly everyone accepts that taxation is justified for some cases where you can't really avoid benefiting from the expenditure, the textbook example being public goods like defense (you can't opt-out of benefiting from the defeat of an invading army) or a lighthouse (you can't stop a sailor who didn't pay from seeing it).
And post-communism most people accept that taxation is not justified for many other cases, for example, using tax money to gift the president a private golf club would not be moral (he can buy golfing time with his salary or prior wealth). The benefit only accrues to the user in that case, and they can easily pay for it themselves.
In the past you could argue that state media was more like a lighthouse, because signals were broadcast from towers unencrypted and there was no way to restrict reception to people who paid. So, pass a tax and make everyone pay if they own any kind of receiving device at all.
But technological progress has changed everything. It's now easy to restrict broadcasts to only people who paid for them. TV/radio is no longer like a lighthouse, it's now more like a magazine and therefore it's immoral to tax fund them because they're not public goods anymore. You wouldn't be happy to find the government had forcibly subscribed you to the Wall Street Journal, right? You'd point out that people who want to read it can just buy a copy themselves. Same thing for TV/radio.
Maybe your argument makes sense in the US, but in many countries (like here in Germany) there do exist TV and radio that are publicly funded, trusted, and good, so yes I’m more than okay that I have to pay monthly, and in your words, “forcibly subscribed” to the ARD and ZDF. I think having trustworthy news that is accessible to everyone is extremely useful and important so even if I didn’t use them myself I’m glad to pay so that others can.
The argument makes sense everywhere. There exist in Germany TV and radio that maybe you trust and think are good, and maybe you enjoy forcing other people pay for them against their will. But there are many people who would profoundly disagree with you on that in Germany: ask any AfD voter.
Again, to see this, just consider how you'd feel if FOX News launched a German version and you were forced to pay for that against your will. Would you find that moral? Don't try and claim subjective quality judgements make a difference; obviously plenty of people think FOX News is high quality, that's why they watch it.
I really dislike this line of argument that goes like "everything is the same as everything else so why don't you oppose this?".
Okay, but Fox News is obviously fundamentally different because it's a private entertainment program. That's why it's bought out and influenced by the ultra-wealthy. It's a propaganda program for capitalists. You can't just say that's "the same" as a neutrally-funded public program.
You can't "sell", so to speak, public services. That's why republican generally oppose it - they can't give a slice to their cronies so they don't want it. The problem with things like SS, which the right has attacked and attempted to dismantle the second it was written into law, isn't that it's "unfair", it's that it's not private. If you actually look at the proposals for dismantling SS, they all involve privatizing it, aka stealing it and handing out slices to their cronies.
Things like PBS and NPR getting public funds and being allowed to exist is a problem to the right because it means it can't be bought and controlled like Huff Post or Fox can.
FOX isn't a private entertainment programme, it's a channel that's focused exclusively on news and current affairs. State media is the one that includes drama, comedy etc. If your argument is based on that distinction you'll have to rethink it. If it's just left wing good, right wing bad, then you've made my argument for me!
This is some very low effort gymnastics. Please reread the comment instead of whatever this sycophant reply was.
Nobody actually thinks Fox is high quality. That's not why they watch it. They just perceive other news to be just as bad, and it's cathartic to hear their own lies screamed back at them.
> If it's just left wing good, right wing bad, then you've made my argument for me!
No, that's not my argument.
My argument is that public and private media have different incentive structures so you can't just compare them like that.
And, in addition, the right hates anything public. Of course they want to dismantle public media, because that's what they do. They want to dismantle public schools too, and social security. Because then they, and their friends, can get their slice. The problem with public programs is that rich can't buy them.
And this isn't an unfair characterization of the right, this is their explicit goals. Again, with SS, the second it was made into law it was under attack by the right. They'll lie to you and say "it's insolvent! It doesn't work! We need to privatize it... if me and my cronies control it, then it would be much better!" But of course, what happens is they sell it off, you don't get your retirement, and the money gets stolen. They know that, that's why they want to do it.
> FOX isn't a private entertainment programme, it's a channel that's focused exclusively on news and current affairs.
See, this makes me think you're trolling. Come on now.
Your lighthouse parable is still highly relevant for public broadcasters when you consider that modern public broadcasting heavily subsidize expensive original reporting that for-profit newspapers are free to and happy to republish.
A core reason for having a robust public broadcasting system is that it lifts the quality of the entire information ecosystem.
Saying this as a Norwegian. I happily pay around 200/300 dollars a year for it out of my taxes.
Yes, people who enjoy state TV like making other people pay for their enjoyment. That's immoral. Certainly, you cannot argue it's moral because you personally believe it's high quality. Lots of people in any country feel the exact opposite: that state TV damages the entire information ecosystem and is outright malign. Under what consistent moral code should they be forced to pay for it?
I don't enjoy making others pay for my entertainment. What a petty way to frame the discussion.
You'll find broad/majority support for state broadcasters in Northern Europe. The business model of for-profit digital news production is not economically viable outside of certain niches or clickbait/ragebait. Doubly so in small countries with just a few million citizens.
Free, broadly available, non-commercial journalism is a critical part of our society. Some would say paywalling a baseline of local knowledge constricts civic participation and is immoral. But that's a lame value judgement and should rightfully be dismissed.
I already showed that the UK - definitely a country in Northern Europe - doesn't have a majority that finds its state broadcaster trustworthy. We can assume those people who don't find it trustworthy don't support it, or if they do, do so only out of inertia and wouldn't care if it went away either.
> The business model of for-profit digital news production is not economically viable outside of certain niches or clickbait/ragebait
State media is much more than just news, so are you agreeing at least that all of the non-news production should be defunded?
But, of course it's viable to do for-profit news. There are plenty of successful private news companies out there that aren't niche. You are welcome to define all news you dislike as ragebait but that's clearly not an argument, it's just a "lame value judgement".
> Free, broadly available, non-commercial journalism is a critical part of our society
It's not free and it's not non-commercial. People are paid to produce it via ordinary commercial contracts, and then people are forced to buy it. Nor is it a critical part of society. Society did just fine before state media was a thing. Meanwhile the injustice upon innocent people remains, and the existence of it harms society itself greatly via other paths as well.
