People want transparency and open reporting, objective journalism is something desirable, right? The founder of Gonzo journalism, Hunter S. Thompson said: “Objective journalism is one of the main reasons American politics has been allowed to be so corrupt for so long.” So maybe objectivity isn’t so desirable. I think most people believe that the news is no longer objective, whereas public broadcasting was built to serve the public interest; it’s tax-payer money, it’s what should be giving us a voice.Public broadcasting has come under attack many times since it was created by the Johnson administration in 1968 (click photo to watch video ), and since then, it “facilitates noncommercial news and entertainment programming,” in addition to Frontline and documentaries such as Alex Gibney’s Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. Although public broadcast has come under attack for seeming to politically left (with documentaries such as Gibney’s,) I think there is a need to not make journalism seem so objective, and what is really needed is a safeguard against commercial media. Compared to other developed countries, we spend pennies on public broadcasting and can be considered “a bit of an embarrassment” compared to the BBC which is a good example of what democracy can look like.1 New York University professor Rodney Benson says that public funded media is “a key reason why their citizens are much more knowledgeable about government and international affairs than are U.S. citizens,” and “safeguarded from the kind of partisan interference that has become all too common in this country.”2 This is just one argument for why there is a need for public broadcasting, and this type of journalism. Even if you know something is biased, or at first maybe a little unethical, does it affect the content of the message? Does anyone have any insight to investigate this type of journalism? Please read Matt’s comment below for continuation of this topic/post….