Home > Issues > Fake News > Democratic Funding Model for the Broadcast and Print Media

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

Democratic Funding Model for the Broadcast and Print Media

(slightly amended)

Peter Zohrab 2016

Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map

(Open Letter to the Hon Gerry Brownlee)

 

Dear Mr. Brownlee,

 

I have seen at least some of your interactions with Paul Henry on his TV3 morning programme, where you allude to the power of the media. As we both know, the media have power over politicians, who depend on the media in order to communicate with voters.

At the moment, advertising is the main funder of the broadcast and print media overall. However, according to “Diversity Matters”, page 7, “As customers, women are involved in 80 percent of consumer goods purchases in the UK.”

That means that the broadcast and print media are 80 percent bound to tailor their content so as to please women and the marketers of goods that women buy.

The political consequence of this is that the voters who rely on the broadcast and print media for their information on politics inevitably hear content that is likely to be 80 percent biased against men and in favour of women. In turn, that is likely to make 80 percent of politicians make policy and legislative decisions that favour women over men, or make all politicians make policy and legislative decisions that favour women over men 80 percent of the time – in order to get elected!

This is not Democracy! Men’s Rights Activists, for example, never get equal treatment with Feminists on the media – the media are in fact Feminist propaganda enterprises!

Men have become second-class citizens in New Zealand because of the way that the media are funded. This must stop!

I leave it to your ingenuity to work out what a Democratic media funding model might look like. However, I note that some online media outlets have introduced a pay-per-view revenue solution, and I would also like to float the idea of separating the funding of news and current affairs from other media funding. One solution might involve removing all advertising from news and current affairs broadcasting and print media and funding it on a pay-per-view basis – subsidized by the government on a pro rata basis. For example, the viewer might pay one tenth of the cost and the Government nine tenths. By "pay-per-view", I am not referring only to electronic media. I mean that print media should also separate news and current affairs from (a) its other content and (b) advertising. This would result in an expensive product, so the Government should subsidise it -- not up-front, but only per view. Someone would have to be willing to pay their share before a Government subsidy would be triggered.

That might result in a level playing-field!

 

See also:

 

FAQ

Webmaster

Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

23 April 2018

Top