Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ARGUING: PRO The US government should fully fund a public media outlet.
STRUCTURE:
1. Impartiality/checks and balances
a. The CPB encourages objectivity and balance in public broadcasting
b. Needs to appeal to a wider audience, so it must remain impartial
c. Broadcasters have independence, and report without partisanship
i. Government will not influence journalism, just like how the industry
responded to these ethical issues with advertising
d. Do not sell advertisements, no influence from outside sources
i. Public broadcasting does not rely on selling products to make money, so
there can be more of a focus on actual news. There is no more need to
focus on click bait to earn revenue
ii. Donors and advertisers can’t influence media content
2. Encourage political activity
a. BBC
i. Allows for all sides to present their views
1. Because BBC is supported in large part by a license fee and
government dollars, it has the ability to have range and depth in
programming.
ii. Focuses on what is important to the people
b. US
i. Increases coverage of local news and public affairs
ii. Increases awareness of important issues
1. Provides references
iii. Helps uneducated people learn about politics
iv. Creates a national culture
3. Necessary for rural areas
a. Many rural areas don't get national coverage
b. Many areas only have PBS and NPR
c. Local media relies on government funds to operate
d. Combats low education rates
i. TRUMP
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VSl_iA-WLCzsn4qLKnsy__40i61GdGsaiCCjjt0slQk/edit 1/8
12/21/2018 framework - Google Docs
REBUTTALS:
1. CON: The government would interfere in the news being presented and make it biased.
PRO: There are systems in place to prevent this from happening. The charter for VOA, a
large governmentfunded media network, explicitly states that there must be editorial
independence for all VOA journalists. And other countries with staterun media have
found impartiality after implementing a buffer between politics and journalism, according
to Harvard University's Nieman Foundation for Journalism.
2. CON: Trump will control the media!
PRO: Trump will not be an influence on the media. A government funded public media
outlet does not mean the government is in control of everything the media puts out. The
same debate arose when advertisers were introduced as a way to bring in money for
journalism companies. People feared that the integrity of news would be taken away
because journalists are tailoring what they write to please their advertisers. Josh Silver,
Executive Director of the Free Press organization, wrote “I believe in journalists and their
commitment to independence, and I believe that strong protections can be put in place
between journalism and the funding stream. The same way firewalls were built between
editorial and advertising in the past.” As stated in the Society of Professional Journalists’
Code of Ethics, journalists must “recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs
over public affairs and government” and “avoid political and other outside activities that
may compromise integrity or impartiality”. Good journalists will continue to do this even
when funded by the government.
3. CON: Economic freedoms are taken away.
PRO: Other sources have an advantage, as they can advertise. PBS does not sell ads,
nor does the UK's BBC. The implementation of statefunded media will not threaten
private companies, as the governmentfunded media aims to just exist, not compete. It is
there as a resource, not as an alternative to the major networks. Its main job is to be
there for education and access to information.
4. CON: Government funded public broadcasting is no longer necessary because there are
many other broadcasting companies currently available.
PRO: It is true that when government funded broadcasting was created there were less
channels and media for people to watch and get news from, but it is still important now.
People in rural areas often rely on public broadcasting news sources and local media
outlets that in turn rely on government funds. Also, public news outlets have the potential
to be more educational and better in news coverage compared to private media
companies who are focused on ad and click/watch revenue.
5. CON: Net Neutrality
PRO: This is irrelevant. The FCC was not targeting media sources specifically. No
government agency, including the FCC, have any influence on US media sources. In
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VSl_iA-WLCzsn4qLKnsy__40i61GdGsaiCCjjt0slQk/edit 2/8
12/21/2018 framework - Google Docs
fact, governmentrun media can often be critical of their own governments. Take the BBC
for example. They have been very critical of PM Theresa May's brexit negotiations, even
though the BBC is completely owned by the government, which is headed by Theresa
May. If you look at the VOA article "What is Net Neutrality?" you will see that VOA was
critical of the FCC and the decision to end Net Neutrality. Just because their funding is
from the government, does not mean they can't be critical.
As journalists following the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics , reporters
for a staterun media have a responsibility to be watchdogs over the government.
6. CON: It would rely on taxes to fund such a large network.
PRO: 51 cents per TV per day. Is that too much? That is more than enough to operate a
news network, as the BBC only spends 4.7 billion a year, and they can survive on 51
cents per tv per day.
7. CON: The government will use the media for propaganda
PRO: In the past, the US government used the VOA for propaganda. But since the
signing of the VOA charter by President Ford in 1972, a "firewall" system has been in
place. The firewall prevents the US government, by law, from interfering with what
stories are published, who is hired, and the operations of the network. PBS and NPR
have similar protocol. Our opponents have likened the past propaganda of VOA to the
media in China, however this is a completely inaccurate comparison. According to the
Council on Foreign Relations, the Chinese government has complete control of the
media. There is no law prohibiting a the government from running the state media. VOA,
NPR, and PBS are protected against government control and propaganda by law. They
only function to provide information to the public, as impartial as possible.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VSl_iA-WLCzsn4qLKnsy__40i61GdGsaiCCjjt0slQk/edit 3/8
12/21/2018 framework - Google Docs
SCHEDULE:
5 min. Constructive speech (M)
Defining plan, outline arguments, brief quotes
(get crossed 2vM)
Defend arg1 by using PBS, NPR, BBC examples
Defend sources
Defend arg3 by explaining the children education programming
Defend arg3 by showing that news can educate, based on Farhad Manjoo's experiment
for the NY Times. A lack of media decreases one's understanding of the world. In order
to expand the rural population understanding of international politics and national
politics, there must be a national public news network. Otherwise, the undereducated
populus may vote for powercrazy populists with empty promises.
(Con speech 1)
2 min. Cross examination (Mv1)
Ask to elaborate their argument, then attack
Find holes, logical fallacies
Twist words around
5 min. Constructive speech (A)
Further explain arguments, provide a lot credible sources and quotes, defend from con
Attack their answers from cross
Pick and choose from prewritten rebuttals above
(get crossed 1vA)
Defend sources
(Con speech 2)
2 min. Cross examination (Av2):
Ask to elaborate their argument, then attack
Find holes, logical fallacies
Twist words around
Use sources, laws, and logic
(Con rebuttal 1)
2 min. Rebuttal (M):
Provide relevant and important facts that weren’t mentioned before
Respond to arguments from first con rebuttal and all previous crosses
(Con rebuttal 2)
2 min. Rebuttal (A):
Emotion
TRUMP
Summarize which points they could not rebut
Redefine contentions
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VSl_iA-WLCzsn4qLKnsy__40i61GdGsaiCCjjt0slQk/edit 4/8
12/21/2018 framework - Google Docs
MC:
Introduction: My partner and I affirm the resolution, Resolved: the US government should fully
fund a public media outlet. First, let us clarify the resolution. We believe that there should be a
media outlet that is 100% funded by the government, in addition to other outlets. We are NOT
suggesting the government take over all media sources. Also let us explain the resolution.
"Should" implies that the US government has a duty to its people to provide an alternative news
source.
Creating a public media source is crucial to American journalism for the following reasons.
1. A public media source that does not rely on selling advertisements and getting money
from donors is able to focus more on news and impartiality. News sources can be heavily
influenced by their advertisers and this impacts the integrity of media. According to
research by Professors Matthew Ellman and Fabrizio Germano, biased content is most
likely when advertisers are large and can threaten to withdraw their advertising business
from the media.
2. An educational and entertaining news source will inform citizens on politics and local
events. The BBC, because it is funded by the government, is able to have a wide range
in depth in programming that informs British citizens. If this was further implemented in
America, uneducated people could learn more about politics. Public affairs and local
news would also be covered. Unlike private networks, who discuss whatever they want
to, public media is for the people to learn about important issues that concern them .
Public media is by the people and for the people.
3. Lastly, if there was a government funded public media source in rural communities,
people would be more informed. Public media in rural areas currently relies heavily on
government funds because there are less donors to support them. The Corporation for
Public Broadcasting grants represent 19 percent of an average rural station’s revenue,
versus 11 perce nt for the rest of the industry. A single public broadcast company would
alleviate the pressure these stations face, and better inform rural citizens that often only
have a few media outlets in the area.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VSl_iA-WLCzsn4qLKnsy__40i61GdGsaiCCjjt0slQk/edit 5/8
12/21/2018 framework - Google Docs
AC:
Defend with:
● 1
○ Media sources wanted to be objective, "By appealing to a wider audience, they
were able to increase their circulation"
■ "The Foxification of News." by the Economist
○ PBS doesn't sell advertisements, that makes them more objective than private
media
■ Todd VanDerWerff Vox "Defunding the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting Won’t Kill PBS. It Will Hurt Trump Voters."
○ Public media in other 1st world countries have succeeded in keeping the
government out of the statefunded media
■ Nikki Usher, Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard University
○ Both pieces of legislation that regulate the VOA and the CPB stress that balance
and objectivity will always exist within those sources
■ The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 and The VOA Charter of 1972
● 2
○ "Civil, deep, serious, [and] inclusive [debates] about the issues of the day can
take place" in government programming
■ according to Steve Coll, the thenCEO and president of the bipartisan
New America Foundation think tank.
○ "In recent years, an increasing number of NPR stations have moved to a news
and public affairs format, providing local news coverage at a time when local
newspapers are withering and the ranks of state capital and city hall reporters
have been decimated." This shows that public media sources are most interested
on content that is important to the public, unlike private media sources.
■ Howard Husock, vice president of research and publications at the
Manhattan Institute (think tank on urban policy) and a City Journal
(magazine about urban policy, published by Manhattan institute)
contributing editor, for the Washington Post.
● Conservative Source bipartisan issue
○ "It's also the only outlet with fulltime coverage of the regulatory bodies that
oversee Alaska’s massive commercial fishing and natural resource industries."
Public media sources are the only ones covering the big industries in Alaska.
Many people rely on those industries, so they rely on public media to provide
information that concerns their way of life.
■ J. Brian Charles, governing.com A magazine covering local government
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VSl_iA-WLCzsn4qLKnsy__40i61GdGsaiCCjjt0slQk/edit 6/8
12/21/2018 framework - Google Docs
● 3
○ Nearly half of all rural grantees – 113 stations – rely on CPB for at least 25
percent of their revenue.
■ CPB website
○ "And local PBS and NPR affiliates in rural areas are occasionally among the only
local stations left. Much of the country’s radio infrastructure has been bought up
by one corporation (iHeartRadio), while other local TV stations are generally
affiliated with one of the major, national networks. To be sure, PBS and NPR
stations still broadcast other PBS and NPR programming, but they’re also far
more likely to air, say, a talk show about local affairs, a local gardening program,
or some other sort of programming deliberately aimed at one community in
particular."
○
Attack with:
● Rebuttals 17
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VSl_iA-WLCzsn4qLKnsy__40i61GdGsaiCCjjt0slQk/edit 7/8
12/21/2018 framework - Google Docs
MC cont.
1. Use the notecards
a. Focus on spelling out acronyms
2. Add more thoughts/cultivate a narrative
3. Conclude
Stream of thought/narrative:
1. Media will be seperate from government
2. Independent media will present all sides of an argument, which is impartial
3. Impartial media will inform the rural population
4. The rural population will become educated, and thus more concerned with policy (less in
favor of trump)
5. America and journalism will become stronger and more democratic
Conclusion:
The private media outlets, which our opponents prefer, will be influenced by government,
compromised by biased advertising, and misleading to our under educated rural populus. We
implore you, our audience, to vote pro on this resolution, because we know that a statefunded
media will be uninfluenced, unbiased, and educational. And isn't that what our nation deserves?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VSl_iA-WLCzsn4qLKnsy__40i61GdGsaiCCjjt0slQk/edit 8/8