Privatize the Atlasian National Broadcaster Act (Debating)

[This account no longer in use.]

Again, I don't think the government should have a cable network. Personally, I'd be open to Nyman Weekly owning the ANB if Ted Bessell wants.

[Mike Thick]

Again, I don't think the government should have a cable network. Personally, I'd be open to Nyman Weekly owning the ANB if Ted Bessell wants.

I'd love to have the paper own the ANB.

I think that Nyman has provided pretty neutral coverage: despite my own leanings, I've tried to present things in a balanced way, and I hope that shows. However, I'd been planning on bringing Laborites on board anyway, and I hope that (if it works out) it'll assuage some of your concerns.

The way I see it, we don't have much interest in material profits or gains in the same way that the players (in-game) don't have to actively eat or drink to survive. We're player-operated, and we won't go out of business regardless of how little money we make. Because of this, we put proper coverage ahead of financial gain.

[Leinad]

I am opposed to government retaining a share in this, because I think this is far outside governmental jurisdiction. It's blatantly ridiculous to think that the private sector is literally so incapable of running television that we need to get government, of all things, involved. I have far more trust in the private sector, people whose jobs are on the line based on how successful they are, making good television than I do in bureaucrats with cushy jobs on the taxpayer's dime.

If you want conditions in the sale, such as agreements to adhere to neutrality guidelines or whatever, amend the bill to include such things! But retaining this idea of a taxpayer-funded television network is thoroughly absurd, and you can count on me for at least one "nay" vote should this chamber go in that direction.

I am also very heavily opposed to a specific company being named in government legislation. I think that in an open and fair process, Nyman Weekly, or a similarly upstanding and active company, will end up with the deal.

So, since PBS apparently doesn't exist, I suppose a full repeal isn't the prefered measure. I'll have a more detailed privatization mechanism shortly, if anyone has any ideas on how the committee will work, those are heavily appreciated, since I'm not really sure.

As a reminder, the bill looks like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The selection method for the committee is the main problem. To quote myself: "maybe the Management and Advisory Boards of the original bill could have a say, or even be the committee? Either way, I think two things we should try to do with the selection process is aim for people with expertise in this, and to make the committee, overall, un-biased."

Thoughts?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It's blatantly ridiculous to think that the private sector is literally so incapable of running television that we need to get government, of all things, involved.

This really isn't the point, though. No-one is question Ted's ability to run an excellent news corporation, or the competence of the private sector in general. The purpose of the ANB, as I understand it, is to (a) provide unbiased, nonpartisan analysis of current events; and (b) to feature artistic and educational programing that, while perhaps not a money-making venture, forms a significant part of our collective culture and heritage. I believe it makes sense for such an organization to be owned publicly and managed by the representatives of the people, in the same way that I believe it makes sense for the Smithsonian or the National Parks Service to be owned and managed publicly. You may disagree with this philosophy, but it is not "ridiculous," any more than privatization or faith in the private sector is "ridiculous."

I have far more trust in the private sector, people whose jobs are on the line based on how successful they are, making good television than I do in bureaucrats with cushy jobs on the taxpayer's dime.

This is more a cliche than anything else. As someone who, in real life, must regularly tangle with incompetent private sector insurers, utility companies, and phone providers, and who sometimes has the pleasure of dealing with efficient and helpful government workers, I can testify that the private sector does not have a monopoly on wisdom and the government does not have a monopoly on incompetence. Obviously, there are inefficient and absurd government agencies, but there are inefficient and absurd agencies in the private sector, too. We don't want to paint everybody with the same brush.

I think that Nyman has provided pretty neutral coverage: despite my own leanings, I've tried to present things in a balanced way, and I hope that shows. However, I'd been planning on bringing Laborites on board anyway, and I hope that (if it works out) it'll assuage some of your concerns.

Speaking as a Laborite, I quite agree that Nyman Weekly is excellent. If we decide to sell all or part of the ANB, I'm in favor of you getting it; I just want to be sure that such is the right step to take.


Tomorrow, I intend to read through the ANBB to see just how the National Broadcaster differs from its real-life counterpart, PBS. From reading the GM's reports, it seems that the ANB does not broadcast scripted programming (so, no Downton Abbey); I'm be interested to see what other programming and administrative differences there are. It may be that it would be advisable to privatize parts of the ANB so as to make more appropriate use of it.

[Adam Griffin]

I've generally refrained from waving myself around in debates, feeling like I should let the Senate have its activity (because it needs all it can get) and let things play out how they should.

However, considering this is now getting to its third page and there is a lot of energetic back-and-forth, all I can say is: hope you got 7 votes for (any of) this.

Get it together, Laborites.

[Leinad]

It's blatantly ridiculous to think that the private sector is literally so incapable of running television that we need to get government, of all things, involved.

This really isn't the point, though. No-one is question Ted's ability to run an excellent news corporation, or the competence of the private sector in general. The purpose of the ANB, as I understand it, is to (a) provide unbiased, nonpartisan analysis of current events; and (b) to feature artistic and educational programing that, while perhaps not a money-making venture, forms a significant part of our collective culture and heritage.

It sort of is the point. Basically, why does the government need to do this? Of course, the purpose of the ANB is a good one, I will not for one second question that. But it is my job as Senator to question why the government should be involved in this. Obviously, it is not the jurisdiction of the government to support every "good" purpose, and I would argue that unless something needs to be controlled by government, it should not be. I see no reason why the government needs to control a television station, especially at the expense of the taxpayers.


Alright, here's my new amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My intention is for this to be the final version, or at least close to it.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Senators have twenty-four hours to object to Leinad's amendment.

Basically, why does the government need to do this?

Because the first job of private enterprise is to turn a profit, whereas the purpose of the ANB is to place quality of programing above all other considerations. Private media outlets like CNN have to prioritize profit (and therefore ratings) above all else in order to survive - there's nothing wrong with that, that's how the free market is supposed to work. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, this is a model that works pretty well for both the producer and the consumer; the problem is that sometimes cultural value does not transfer into the world of financial gain. A publicly-owned ANB is not dependent on market forces, so it can prioritize quality even at the expense of profit.

Consider the real-life presidential election: no-one can deny that Donald Trump is doing a good job winning votes (the political equivalent of TV ratings), but his policy proposals are vapid and, in some cases, divorced from reality. If Trump were a TV station, he would be doing very, very well - but sometimes, we need a "low energy" source that gives only the facts and puts substance above mass appeal.

[Blair]

I object; I'll not support any amendment that supports wholesale sale (that's a tongue twister)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

In that case, a vote is now open on Leinad's amendment. Please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain. Voting will last 72 hours or until a majority has been reached.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Blair]

Nay

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

NAY.

[This account no longer in use.]

Aye.

[Clark Kent]

AYE

[Leinad]

AYE! (duh)

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Aye

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The Amendment has been adopted.

[Leinad]

I motion for a final vote (I think I'm doing this right ).

[Blair]

I object

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I motion for a final vote (I think I'm doing this right ).

You've been doing fine. Technically, the correct motion at this stage would have been for cloture: motions for final votes may only be entered if debate has stalled for at least 36 hours. As cloture requires a 2/3 majority to pass, it's usually better to wait 36 hours and then make the motion.

Since it's clear what you were trying to do, I'm going to interpret this as a motion for cloture (correct me if I'm wrong). Senator Blair has objected, so we will now proceed with a cloture vote. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. A 2/3 majority is required for the motion to be adopted. Voting will last 72 hours or until all Senators have voted.

[Leinad]

Ah, thanks, yes, cloture.

Anyway, AYE on the cloture motion from Senator Me.

[Blair]

Nay- the Senate needs more time to debate the issue considering for once we've actually got concerns

[Clark Kent]

AYE

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Abstain

[This account no longer in use.]

Aye.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Aye