We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Privatising National Media
Details
Submitted by[?]: Freedom Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: March 2089
Description[?]:
| The funding of a National Television Station is expensive and is a tax on citizens who do not watch it and/or do not own a television. A radio station is cheaper and easier to run. The government can reserve the right to use the private television media to broadcast important messages to the nation in case of emergency. The private companies would not object because if they did and it was an emergency, the people would be upset with them and not like them for it and therefore the private television station would lose money. Using the arguments of the LAP in their radio reform bill. Unlike with some forms of privatisation, this one would not affect the cost to the individual at all. Listening to the radio costs exactly the same (nothing, provided you already own a radio), regardless of whether or not you are listening to government-funded radio. There will, however, be positive monetary repurcussions. Money which was being pumped into subsidized radio would now be available for other, more pressing areas of government spending, or indeed could be used to give the citizens of Rutania a generous tax cut. If the content which was previously provided by the public radio station is genuinely in demand by the public, private entrepeneurs will doubtless seize the opportunity to provide it. The only difference will be the extra wad of cash which the Rutanian radio listener will have in his pocket after filing his taxes. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Radio stations.
Old value:: The government subsidises a national radio station for educational and informational purposes; other private non-subsidised radio stations are allowed.
Current: All radio stations are owned by independent non-profit-making cooperatives which receive no subsidies from the government.
Proposed: All radio stations are private.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Television stations.
Old value:: The government subsidises a national TV station for educational and informational purposes; other private non-subsidised TV stations are allowed.
Current: All TV stations are owned by independent non-profit-making cooperatives which receive no subsidies from the government.
Proposed: All television media are private.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 09:24:51, July 30, 2005 CET | From |  RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Privatising National Media |
| Message | Against, we need one national TV station and one national radio station for education and informational purposes. |
| Date | 11:40:11, July 30, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Privatising National Media |
| Message | Why exactly? What type of information? Education should happen in schools. Private television companies will provide educational programmes as there is demand for them. Documentaries, the Discovery Channel, the History Channel. They all exist and are in demand, educational programmes will always exist, there is no need to have a national television station for it. And before you say the national (GOVERNMENT FUNDED) tv station will be objective and fair, it wont. Where does it get its money from? The state, the government, so its views and its opinions will be inline with the governments otherwise their funding will be cut or scrapped. Just like the BBC. |
| Date | 13:06:58, July 30, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Privatising National Media |
| Message | I was thinking about extensive reports about government business and Parliamentary discussions, and inform the citizens about what proposals in the Federal Parliament would do and what their consequences would be, inform the citizens of the current state of affairs,... (and digital TV offers even more possibilities). That can be done with a very low budget. A national TV station or radio station can be perfectly neutral. |
| Date | 18:46:36, July 30, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Privatising National Media |
| Message | Can be but almost always is not. The government can contract out rights to the things you mentioned to a private television company. There is demand for them so they will be offered. |
| Date | 12:27:55, July 31, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Privatising National Media |
| Message | Well, but if that private company can make more money by broadcasting sports than politics, we'd have to look for a different station again and again. And if that private television company goes bankrupt, who'll want to take over its functions? |
| Date | 12:28:15, July 31, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Privatising National Media |
| Message | Besides, contracting or funding one costs the same. |
| Date | 18:51:37, July 31, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Privatising National Media |
| Message | The current legislation doesnt ban or in any way restrict private media, so against. |
| Date | 22:37:06, August 01, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Privatising National Media |
| Message | Contracting and funding do not cost the same. By contracting i meant, they offer private companies the right to bid for the contract. That way the private company pays to show the coverage. Govt pays nothing. Funding it would cost the Govt, contracting does not. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 75 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 462 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 62 |
| Random fact: The people in your nation don't like inactive parties. When you often abstain from voting for a bill, they will dislike your party and your visibility to the electorate will decrease significantly. Low visibility will means you are likely to lose seats. So keep in mind: voting Yes or No is always better than Abstaining. |
| Random quote: "A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise." - Niccolo Machiavelli |