New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has been suggesting the possibility of a state-run-media operation in an effort to gain coverage that he calls, “fair and responsive.” The mayor says that if the public owned the station it would “create more balance.” Mayor de Blasio continued with the following comments regarding a state-run-media operation:

“I think it’s a really good question and one that intrigues me and one that I’d be open to in seeing the city invest in. Publicly sponsored, with appropriate grounds. The BBC model, not always perfect, but in the best sense there is definitely a place for that.”

The New York City mayor eludes to the notion that if the city opens the doors to state-run-media and pays the bills with tax-payer money, then the people of New York City would own the station. This is a cute attempt at avoiding the fact that tax payers have no say in the operations of a state-run-media outlet and reap zero benefits from it however, they would pay the bills. The operations of the outfit and the coverage it chooses to focus on would be directed by whomever mayor de Blasio chooses to appoint.

Mayor de Blasio seems to believe that the city can appoint someone that is above the political fray, just as we do in the judiciary:

“Sure, the mayor named the head of WNYC, but that was a no-fly zone in terms of political influence. You had to choose someone very much above the fray, using almost the same sensibilities we would think about naming judges, for example.”

This is a laughable example offered by mayor de Blasio in light of recent revelations. Since the election of Donald Trump we have seen numerous judges turn into activists on the bench. We know this due to their decisions being blatantly contradictory to the language contained within the Constitution which is further displayed in the Supreme Court’s decisions to overturn their rulings by wide margins. The Travel ban is a great example of judges acting outside the Constitution in efforts to force their politics onto the people.  They too were thought to be “above the political fray.”

We not only saw judges become political activists since the election of Donald Trump, but we saw the outgoing acting Attorney General Sally Yates base decisions at the Justice Department on her political proclivities as well. From FBI agents on Robert Mueller’s special counsel, to an Attorney General, to Immigration Judges ruling on the travel ban; we have seen example after example of those whom are supposed to be “above the political fray” jump directly onto the front lines of political discourse.

Which leaves us with Mayor Bill de Blasio. As he suggests employing a stapled asset to socialism, state-run-media, he says that he is capable of appointing someone that is “above the political fray.” As he makes daily derogatory comments about President Trump, he says that he can appoint someone that is “above the political fray.” As he spends so much of his political capital investing in identity politics, he says that he can “appoint someone above the political fray.”

Mayor de Blasio lied about his knowledge of the NYCHA lead-paint scandal in order to further his political career. Are we to expect Mayor Bill de Blasio wouldn’t hire a media director that will tow his party’s line in an effort to, again, further his political career?

Direct government funding to media outlets poses a major credibility issue. A state-run-media outlet is not subject to a content-driven revenue stream that hinges on viewers’ likes or dislikes. Instead, the government provides funding for the content, which of course leads viewers to believe there is a quid pro quo. Being a member of a capitalist society, that reasoning stands to reason; in America, you get what you pay for. We can be certain that NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio will undoubtedly see to it that he gets what he pays for out of any state-run-media he mandates.