Question of the Day!

Ideally through advertisers, donors and public funds, so that it's accessible to everyone regardless of financial status. Subscriptions are fine so long as there are free libraries where those who can't afford subscriptions can access the media, because libraries are paid for with public funds. Also, the people who provide our media should have protected access to events and information and be paid fairly for sharing that gathered information with the public, and the content of our libraries should not be censored.

I say "ideally" because of the human problem. If public funds were collected and distributed fairly, and if advertisers and donors weren't biased in favor of themselves, this would work fine. But humanity is inherently diverse in opinion at best, and corrupt at worst. Even in the best case scenario, media outlets and libraries have budgets, and someone in the chain of command has to make decisions about what stays and what goes. In addition, there's a question of privacy - what should be considered "public knowledge"? If someone in my house is having an affair, is that anyone else's business? What if someone in my house murdered someone? What if someone discovers the Cure for Cancer™ in their basement? So censorship is built into the problem for a lot of reasons.

In the USA, the library system is pretty robust (for now), so I'm okay with media subscriptions here, but I personally tend to gravitate toward media paid for by advertisers or donors.

Cheers,
Michelle

MTMS, Music Lessons in Columbus, Ohio