I guess it depends. Generally, if the state is notionally a democracy, the state would have to support a privately owned channel. Unless that channel happened to be owned by some news magnate who is a good friend of the leader, say, of the state. Something along those lines. When the leader "is" the state and starts to make foreign policy decisions based on advice from his mate, or his mate's news channel, what does that state become?
Suppose a foreign leader sees an opportunity, in another country (guess which one?) to co-opt a privately owned news channel. This isn't a hard thing to do, using the right tools from the public domain, and given how easily people can be misled. Misleading ordinary people isn't hard to do, it never has been. Ordinary people are suspicious, even superstitious. Press a few religiously-themed buttons and a religiously-oriented society will react. Use available marketing techniques, developed by sociologists and neurologists to tailor the message, sell the message to "the people". Make the message confusing or vague as well, so people develop the idea that something needs to be uncovered, "they" are hiding the truth, etc.
Yes - on whether that state has a monopoly on communication media. Support? I don't see why: if it's commercial, it should be able to support itself. The state would license private media, so long as it adheres to the standard of operation, mandated by the laws and regulations of the land. If business owns or controls government, that's not a democracy. Any "notional" system can be corrupted. Even more stupid than when they elected that corrupt leader.
When the state owns the frequencies, as occurs in the USA. Technically, all free programming is subject to the interests of the state.
How are we defining ''the state?'' Many Repubs think that the media is leftist. Many Democrats believe that the media is right wing focused. Perhaps, it's a subjective thing.
It's been fairly painless, for the foreign leader, to insert stories into the storyline. He has a willing actor doing it for him (for some reason). The privately owned (by who or what) channel just runs with the cue cards. America is in more trouble than it realises. Thanks to their constitution, an anti-constitutional movement exists. I believe the supporters of the willing actor are pursuing this--the death of democracy as America has known it (but what, really, was it?). I think most non-Americans are asking themselves this question: is it already too late? Even if they don't, they really should be thinking that.
capitalist economics dictates the owner of the media stattion to have all authority on what content is produced. this can be propaganda, false information, trolling, anything they like is capitalistic policy to sell a product listed under "entertainment" only government centred mixed economy news stations are held to high moral and ethical standards. everything else is a form of communist or capitalist fascism
Signs that the easily-led, have in fact been easily misled: "There's a report coming out, it's going to say this, and it's going to say that. . . " The report comes out, it says something else entirely, but it still says what the news channel says it says. It says what they said it would say, so it says this, and it says that, see? Reality isn't what it used to be.
lol that is called cult-like thinking blind obedience to a corrupted model of power & authority. you must keep in mind, people are raised to emotionally seek things that they already agree with.
