In Georgia, the governor of the state has appointed a political ally to head Georgia Public Broadcasting, with an eye toward using the network for economic development and to promote the state.
What does that mean for editorial independence, a public radio wag asked the governor.
"I don't consider job creation for the citizens of our state to have a political connotation to it. It's simply doing what's best for our state," the governor said.
Hey, if people can argue that having the vikings in a new stadium creates jobs, and is used to "attract top talent."
One could argue (and I would say people on MPR do so during their member drives) that our public radio is something special and draws in listeners from around the world because of that.
On this very blog not to long ago there was fantastic video from the boundary waters, does that promote our state?
Some one could also say that the best way to promote your state and create jobs then having policies to create jobs and doing things that make your state better over all then letting the media report on that might get you more bang for your buck.
// then letting the media report on that might get you more bang for your buck.
I believe the concern is not "letting" the media tell a particular story but "telling" the media (i.e. a newsroom) to tell a particular story, in essence putting an editorial operation under the control of a marketing operation. That never goes well.
I believe the concept you are referring to is propaganda.
Is state-sponsored propaganda ever good?
Who would listen to it?