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: Government TV
Details
Submitted by[?]: Federation Under Crazy Killers -- United
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: December 2051
Description[?]:
| Government TV brainwashes people |
Proposals
Article 1
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: The government subsidises a national TV station for educational and informational purposes; other private non-subsidised TV stations are allowed.
Proposed: All television media are private.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:05:26, May 08, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Government TV |
| Message | Seconded. Let everyone choose what TV-channels they want. |
| Date | 21:23:20, May 08, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Government TV |
| Message | The current government television station as mentioned when I introduced it many years ago is along the lines of the UK's BBC. Whilst I know that you did not support it then and don't expect your view to change, the current system does not prevent other television channels and the government channel is unbiased and is therefore more accuratly described as a public service broadcaster. We wish to maintain the current system and so will not support this bill. |
| Date | 21:35:43, May 08, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Government TV |
| Message | Public Service == Government Media, so I don't understand how it could be more accurate. Unbiased just means that it's bias is similar to yours (generic you, whoever says 'it is unbiased'. It is impossible to convey information without tinting it with the worldview of the information provider. |
| Date | 22:44:01, May 08, 2005 CET | From | Partiya Nacionalnogo Progressa | To | Debating the Government TV |
| Message | Oh, really? Government TV brainwashes? Muahahaha!!! YOU are in government. I am not. And of course private TV brainwashes more. |
| Date | 22:44:01, May 08, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Government TV |
| Message | But you surely concede that there is a difference for example between the BBC and Zimbabwean state (government owned) television. Obviously bias is a subjective term but I meant that it doesn't broadcast government propaganda etc. |
| Date | 11:43:58, May 09, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Government TV |
| Message | Sure, our propaganda is not the most blatant in the world. But that is a pretty poor reason for not letting our people choose what services they wish to buy. |
| Date | 17:27:49, May 09, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Government TV |
| Message | I'm with the UCA. I've been a fan of PBS and the BBC and find no harm there whatsoever. |
| Date | 07:33:17, May 10, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Government TV |
| Message | Sure you see no harm. What you do see, I hope (otherwise you're blind=)), is that private media in England is rather weak on the areas that BBC concentrates on. Why do you think that is? It is because the government forces people to pay for BBC, so that anyone who wants to watch/hear something else must pay twice. That prevents competition and makes shure that you only hear one version of all news and one side of all debates. |
| Date | 07:34:48, May 10, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Government TV |
| Message | Also funding of a media station can be seen as (read: is) a subsidy, which is bad for the same reason that other subsidies are bad. |
| Date | 10:16:51, May 10, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Government TV |
| Message | Libertarians: we have mentioned that bias is a subjective term but I would hugely reufte the idea that BBC News is one sided, it has the most objective news coverage of any news gathering operation on the planet. With regards to only hearing one side of debates, the BBC'c charter is up for renewal at the moment and there has been an awful lot of debate about how big the BBC should be, how it should be funded, what it should spend its money on etc. This has been a very intense debate and one which the BBC has covered in the news quite comprehensivly, being at times quite critical about itself (no private station would be critical about itself in this way). Secondly, you seem not to quite understand the TV system in UK when you say EVERYONE must pay twice. To watch television you need to pay for a license. This currently goes to fund the BBC, there is a debate about whether this will continue in the future, but you would still need a license, it is just the money would go to the government and not to the BBC. With this license fee you have access to the 5 terrestrial channels: BBC1, BBC2, ITV1, Channel 4 & Channel 5. ITV is strong on drama and Channel 4 is also strong on news and documentaries/alternative programmes. This would show you that infact there is much competition between the stations and that the 'private' media is not weak where the BBC is strong - they do perhaps set a standard against which others need to compete but that can only be good for the quality of programming. If you want to watch other Channels then yes you have to pay, but as I said yyou would need a license with or without the BBC. Sky TV has huge amount of money, much more than the BBC, yet it produces absolute rubbish - apart from the sports channels (as they buy up all the sports rights). An alternative is to buy Freeview - a set top box for a one off payment of £50. This is infact run by a consortium of broadcasters led by the BBC, to ensure that people can gain access to digital TV without needing to pay huge amounts to subscribe to cable or satellite. This gives you access yes to all the BBC's digital channels, but also to those of ITV, some of Channel 4's, and a number of other commercial stations including Sky One and Sky News. Therefore, the private media is not weak in UK, in fact overall in has been said that we have some of the best standards of TV and quality of programming in the world (you may not know but we do export a huge number of programmes around the world - no idea whether they make their way to Sweden!!! and many for example quiz show formats originated in Britain. Therefore to conclude, I would say that at least amongst the terrestrial broadcasters, the BBC actually increases the standards of competition rather than preventing them and news is certainly not onesided. (Oh and just a silly little point which is that you say the government forces people to pay, which is true but it makes it sound unpopular. If the government tried to get rid of the BBC there would be widespread public anger and outcry, it is a British institution which we wouldn't do without, particualarly not if it meant going the way of American TV!!). So in this instance a subsidy or whatever you want to call it is in fact a good thing. |
| Date | 10:19:32, May 10, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Government TV |
| Message | One other interesting point that I forgot to mention, with regards to News accuracy is that during the Iraq war many Americans turned to watching or listening to the BBC as they felt that their coverage was hugely slanted in one direction, whereas the BBC's was not. |
| Date | 21:36:06, May 10, 2005 CET | From |  Federation Under Crazy Killers -- United | To | Debating the Government TV |
| Message | Ok, so Britain is the greatest country around. BBC is the greatest TV station in all the world. But this is Telamon. Who says this government TV will be so great? Who knows, BBC could become a piece of government garbage in 20 years. |
| Date | 11:17:02, May 11, 2005 CET | From | Partiya Nacionalnogo Progressa | To | Debating the Government TV |
| Message | "But this is Telamon. Who says this government TV will be so great? " Hah, I think we all agree, that Telamon is safe, wealthy westeuropean-type country :) And if we have state TV, it is like BBC. |
| Date | 18:21:23, May 11, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Government TV |
| Message | Abstain |
| Date | 19:11:50, May 11, 2005 CET | From | Partiya Nacionalnogo Progressa | To | Debating the Government TV |
| Message | Abstain - sucks. It didn't attract voters :( |
| Date | 18:39:03, May 12, 2005 CET | From | Federation Under Crazy Killers -- United | To | Debating the Government TV |
| Message | "that Telamon is safe, wealthy westeuropean-type country" But how long will that last? The roman empire fell, so can any other at some point in the future. We've seen countries go from bad to good or vice versa. It can happen anywhere anytime. The US started with one idea in mind of what the country was supposed to be, but it has changed very much in just 229 years. (I'm not calling the US an evil country or anything, just that it has changed very much since it's beginning) Any country could do the same. |
| Date | 20:08:58, May 12, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Government TV |
| Message | Yes.We the State and Government know whats best for the people.They dont. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 19 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 47 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 44 |
| Random fact: Large scale RP planning (such as wars, regional/continental conflicts, economic collapse, etc.) should be planned (as best as it can be) and should have consent of a majority of players involved. |
| Random quote: "For among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible; which is one of those disgraceful things which a prince must guard against." - Niccolo Machiavelli |