The main question now is if the public money is available for such expansion of the entity? If we don't have money for the investment (to sponsor the media corporation), then the corporation is forced to make a deal with any sort of an entity for its viability (and growth). Domination can ensue afterwards. You can't have it both ways.
-
DefendTheTruth
- Senior Member
- Posts: 13230
- Joined: 08 Mar 2014, 16:32
If BBC is sponsored by the state (public), then why not EBC?
If you like to avoid any sort of conflict of interest, then the best solution should have been to fund the corporation through the means of public money (like BBC and other national broadcasters are doing else where), removing any sponsoring entity (private or public) and creation of influence through that in the service of the broadcaster is required.
The main question now is if the public money is available for such expansion of the entity? If we don't have money for the investment (to sponsor the media corporation), then the corporation is forced to make a deal with any sort of an entity for its viability (and growth). Domination can ensue afterwards. You can't have it both ways.
The main question now is if the public money is available for such expansion of the entity? If we don't have money for the investment (to sponsor the media corporation), then the corporation is forced to make a deal with any sort of an entity for its viability (and growth). Domination can ensue afterwards. You can't have it both ways.