This house believes that privatization of news broadcasts has harmed society

The privatization of news broadcasts has harmed society. News broadcasts, the mass media which the majority of the world uses to understand and stay informed of major events around the globe, is one of the most valuable tools to mankind. It allows the public to criticize, and form their own informed opinion, on events where that would have previously been impossible, because of lack of knowledge. However, during recent times, news broadcasting has become more and more clouded of its goal. Major news organisations, instead of attempting to provide a honest and unbiased view of world events, have become organisations of terror and of misinformation. News organisations aim now to bring the highest viewer number and rating possible, so that they can increase revenue earned by their program. This means, that more "gossip" stories are being run, where news reporters invade the privacy of celebrities that, quite commonly, are doing nothing but attempting to live their life. It does not help society to know who split up with who, or what a certain celebrity does on their weekend. Instead, it takes time away from real, important news that could be useful for the voting public, such as senate bills being considered, high court cases, or government policy meetings. This take away harms society, by making them vote in an uninformed matter, and by disallowing them their basic right of criticism to the actions of governments, be it their own or others. Take an example of the damage news organisations do, with this gossip- Remember when Tony Abbot, the Australian Prime Minister, made a two day visit to Canada earlier this year? That visit was to affirm their political alliance, and to discuss future foreign policy. Unfortunately, the media didn't pick up on the politics, but instead spent their time discussing PM Abbot's "Canadia" slip of the tongue. Do the voters need to know about Abbot's pronunciation? or do they need to know about Australia and Canada's foreign policy? The media seemed to think so- considering there was widespread coverage of this slip up, without mention of the actual importance of the meeting. This leaves the Australian and Canadian populaces uninformed, and turns politics into a popularity contest, rather than a decision on who would best run the country. Another way that the privatization of news companies is damaging society is the tendencies of news broadcast stations to air biased prices. When was the last time that you saw a piece talking about the many peace loving denominations of Islam, who are now facing discrimination because of the previous "War on Islam"? Or a piece which brings down a political party, pulling apart their logical fallacies just as we do here? Private News stations are biased towards airing information that will keep them in business, and allow them to gain exclusives, such as interviews, or insider coverage, which in turn will give them more funds. Rather than airing a piece that pulls apart government speeches, they cozy up to the government, and the famous, because the stations cannot afford to lose viewers, and money. If the News Broadcast stations were run entirely by either governments, or not for profit agencies, the people of the world might receive a shocking education in the ineptness of their elected representatives. A News Station should only have one motive- to correctly inform the populace of world events. Privatization makes this impossible, as money and viewers must be a motive, else they will collapse. Because of the conflict of interest that is being created, News Stations cannot properly function and the public is hindered. They are not properly informed of the events of the time, and therefore they cannot have an informed opinion on events. This becomes circular, in that the public, because of their absence of information, become satisfied with little information, and stop questioning superiors, allowing governments to get away with anything, harming soceity