“Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the track of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened.” - Dwight D. Eisenhower 1945
The image is a black and white photo of a large pile of human skulls and bones in front of a barbed-wire fence.
My “stipulation”? It’s really weird of you to consider what I said as a “stipulation”, rather than simply a description.
In any case, how does PBS/NPR not meet that description?
The BBC earns £5 billion per year in revenue. On the news side, it generates 120 hours of radio and TV output per day, and employs over 5000 journalists, including 50 different foreign news bureaus. It’s the world’s largest broadcast news organization. Canada’s CBC has a budget of approx $1.38 billion in CAD. CBC’s news operation is the largest news gathering operation in Canada and includes a 24 hour news network. Australia’s ABC has about a $1b/year budget, but in Australia news is split between two public broadcasters, SBS and ABC. Those two are the most trusted news sources in Australia, with the BBC as the 4th most trusted. The most trusted private network is ranked 5th.
If the US wanted something similar in its media landscape, it would have to have a budget of at least $10 billion, or $40b if it were to have a footprint similar to the BBC. How does that compare to the actual budgets of PBS and NPR? PBS is at well under $1b total, NPR is at only $250m Of that, the total government contribution between the two of them is $500m.
In every other major English-speaking country, the public broadcaster is the main source, and the most trusted source of news. They have significant budgets that they use to employ huge numbers of journalists. BBC, in particular, has such an immense news organization that it has a huge worldwide footprint, not just one local to the UK.
NPR and PBS just don’t compare. They may “exist”, but just barely.