I understand that it’s perfectly natural to confuse intelligent, well-researched, in-depth journalism with liberal journalism, but that’s simply not true. There’s no liberal bias in PBS, it’s just that liberal opinion tends to be intelligent, well-researched and well thought out, and conservative opinion tends to be stupid, hasty, emotional dreck.
Deal. And preferably not by the favored conservative technique of stifling media with which you don’t agree.
I think the answer to the op is it would make for some good talk radio and cable news discussions, but that’s about it. It would be missed by a few but it would hardly be a national crisis.
Why is it “irresistible” to take a cheap shot at Bush, when there are so many worthy high-end ways to slam him (and which don’t make one look like a left-wing dittohead).
See, this is a not-often-recognized side benefit of public funding of PBS - the capacity to reinforce warm feelings of smug superiority while minimizing the intrusion of contrary opinions that might cause confusion and upset. 
I still don’t think we need a public funded news department / agency. There are a wealth of those available for public consumption (even if you don’t have cable). IMHO, PBS should stick to programming for education, science and the arts.
Besides, how much true government investigated reporting are you going to get out of an agency that depends on the government for it’s funding.
I still don’t think we need a public funded news department / agency. There are a wealth of those available for public consumption (even if you don’t have cable). IMHO, PBS should stick to programming for education, science and the arts.
Besides, how much true government investigative reporting are you going to get out of an agency that depends on the government for it’s funding.
I believe that the contents of your quote proved that not all liberal opinion is “intelligent, well-researched, and well thought out.”
Much like when Ted Kennedy used his power to supress Rupert Murdoch for criticizing him?
From www.museum.tv:
Both sides attempt to supress media with which they disagree. No side has reason to be sanctimonious on this issue.
So on the one hand, we have an argument that public broadcasting is too liberal to accurately report the news, and on the other hand we have an argument that a publicly funded news organization can’t possibly report on the institution that funds it.
But, hey, as long as we’re arguing about funding for public broadcasting, would anyone like to eliminate the Voice of America VOA - Voice of America English News ? After all, people in other countries certainly have access to other news sources.
In my mind, what a consumer spends his or her dollar on is a much clearer indication of his or her preference than what petition he or she signs or what letter is sent to a Congressman or Senator. Sure, in a perfect world, people may want less media consolidation and more diversity, as you define it. And these people may even express that preference to their elected representatives or to opinion polls. They can talk all they want – it costs them nothing and they don’t have to consider the trade-offs they must make. But when it comes down to actually making choices that cost them something (such as parting with a hard-earned dolar), these people obviously accept the trade-offs that come with having companies like Clear Channel. These people must like to listen to the stations Clear Channel owns and attend the concerts Clear Channel puts on. If they didn’t like these things, Clear Channel would go out of business. If people were really as concerned as they say they are, then they would make different choices with their money. The fact that they don’t ponts to the obvious conclusion that people really don’t care as much about consolidation as they express to their politicians or the pollsters.
Who cares if they are owned by the conglomerates? Just because a big corporation owns a media company does not mean that company all of a sudden loses its editorial edge. CNN is liberal and Fox is conservative – there are two stations owned by huge media companies that have dramatically different political viewpoints.
So what if you don’t have cable? Getting TV news is not a right, you know. It’s a privilege. If you don’t have cable, why don’t you do what people did for centuries before TV – go read a newspaper or magazine? Why should I subsidize your desire to watch news? If it’s important to you, you’ll make it happen. If a citizen is truly interested, then that citizen will find a way to get news.
I grew up in an area that had one TV channel. I had very limited access to TV news. So what did I do? Being a kid who wanted to know what was going on, I read the newspaper and magazines as well as watched the news. I know it’s not that hard to be informed. If PBS weren’t around, people would still manage to get the information they want.
Please, save your sanctimony for someone else. I spend a solid hour each day reading newspapers from around the country. It’s essential to my job, but variety in the medium of news is part of what makes following the news interesting.
You might as well ask me why I don’t just eat Powerbars for every meal, because, after all, Powerbars give me all the nutrition I could possibly need.
Further, the question is not whether I, Ravenman, need to have a TV news program on PBS. The question I posed a while back, and people seemed to ignore, is whether there is a national benefit to having the public informed though a diverse media, and whether that goal is one that is worthy of a relatively small amount of public money. In my mind, spending a measley $400 million to support programs from Sesame Street to Fresh Air to Car Talk to all those other programs, the benefits far outweigh the financial costs.
I’m not sure if that’s a lame rhetorical stunt or whether you simply don’t pay attention to NPR, the News Hour, and similar programs, but let me introduce you to Nina Totenberg. She broke the story about Antia Hill and Clarence Thomas.
Jim McNeil, anchor of the News Hour, moderated all presidential debates in 2000 and in 1996, not to mention having been awarded several Emmys and the National Humanities Medal in 1999.
There are countless other examples of fine journalism from public broadcasting, but suffice it to say that your statement indicates that you are not very well informed about the various news agencies that are supported by public funding.
I assumed that you were well informed, Ravenman. I was answering your question in a way that answers anyone who assumed I should pay for his or her TV news. I’m glad that you appreciate divesity in your news sources; I appreciate it, too. What I don’t appreciate is when you force me to pay for that variety of news sources. Pay for your own diversity, just as I do (or get it for free off of the Internet).
[quote]
You might as well ask me why I don’t just eat Powerbars for every meal, because, after all, Powerbars give me all the nutrition I could possibly need.
[quote]
I never said that variety in news is bad. I just don’t want to pay for it. So your analogy is not quite apt. No one is saying that you should only eat Powerbars; I am simply saying that if you want to go out for steak, pay for it yourself.
One, you assume there would be no diversity of news sources without PBS. This is simply untrue.
Two, no, it’s not worth paying for it. You may think that $400 million is a small budget, but that’s actually a lot of money. Sure, it’s a drop in the bucket for the federal government, but if we would start cutting these small programs, it could help us restore some fiscal sanity to goverment (I know there would be a lot more cutting that needs to be done to actually reach fiscal sanity, but cutting these small programs would help).
Three, even if it didn’t cost all that much, I object to it in principle. Why should I pay any money for an elitist TV station mainly enjoyed by yuppies who like to watch Antigue Roadshow, The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, Masterpiece Theatre, or Frontline? If there is an audience for these highbrow shows, then I am pretty sure they can support them. It’s not as if PBS’s fare is aimed towards poor people. It’s basically a subsidy for the well-off.
Obviously, that middle segment should look like this:
I never said that variety in news is bad. I just don’t want to pay for it. So your analogy is not quite apt. No one is saying that you should only eat Powerbars; I am simply saying that if you want to go out for steak, pay for it yourself.
Maybe one day I’ll start learning to proofread better (or use the “preview post” button).
(My apologies if I came off as snippy in retort.)
I should be clearer about this point. The great advantage of PBS is that is does not have the same commercial pressures that the networks have. I think that’s a really, really good thing, because not having to pause every seven minutes for commercials really does improve the depth of coverage in those news programs. It’s not so much the viewpoint of the news coverage that I’m concerned with, it is more how the news is covered.
Let’s exclude politics for a moment. Take 60 Minutes, a program that I think is pretty darned good. There are what, three or four ten minute pieces in each show? Compare that to a Frontline or a News Hour that actually covers one, or three or four, segments in a 60 minute stretch. I think it just gives the viewer a better return on his investment of time.
Glass half empty, glass half full. 
Considering that that $400 million helps to support hundreds of programs on thousands of radio and TV stations across the country, I think that is very, very cheap. Especially noting that for NPR, as mentioned above, federal funding makes up 14 percent of the operating costs, that money is spread quite thinly.
I don’t have a cite for this, but I am willing to bet some serious bucks that between the major networks, they probably save a huge amount of money through tax loopholes and similar gimmicks. Slightly off topic, but I just read about a member of the House re-writing tax laws to make it harder to tax movie companies on foreign revenues. I think that might put that spending in perspective.
It’s a valid point. I don’t think those shows are actually tailored to appeal to the wealthy (except for Antiques Roadshow. I hate that crap), but I’d agree that they end up being the audience.
Which reminds me of some efforts by the New York Philharmonic, (or was it the opera? don’t recall) to reach out to poorer folks. The people who ran the high-class entertainment, which received NEA grants, saw that they were being subsidized by taxpayers to basically slightly reduce the price of $250 box seats for the white tie croud. So they started giving out tickets in schools in an attempt to broaden their audience. That’s a great thing.
I understand your principles, but mine also say that it is a public benefit to provide a great number of Americans with access to high-brow entertainment and news at no charge. Hopefully some folks are getting smarter and fighting ignorance, and so on.
But, on the larger subject, I really wonder why there are so few shows catering to more conservative viewers on PBS anymore. I guess Wall Street Week is still around, but I haven’t seen Firing Line in ages. Aren’t conservatives interested in making programming that would fit in to the PBS or NPR line-up?
About as interesting as NPR itself.
Renob: In my mind, what a consumer spends his or her dollar on is a much clearer indication of his or her preference than what petition he or she signs or what letter is sent to a Congressman or Senator.
Isn’t that kind of an elitist, not to say arrogant, perspective? Tens of thousands of people sign petitions and show up at meetings and send comments to the FCC and complain to their representatives in order to get their views across, and you have no qualms about just ignoring that? You’re saying, in effect, “ah, these silly little people, they don’t know what they’re talking about; as long as the company manages to stay in business, it must be providing what the people really want, no matter what they say they want!”
They can talk all they want – it costs them nothing and they don’t have to consider the trade-offs they must make.
Yeah, “arrogant” is the word, I think. A coalition of citizens and groups including the National Organization for Women, the National Rifle Association, Common Cause, media unions, minority journalists, musicians, William Safire, and Code Pink, to name just a few, sends over 2 million messages to the FCC complaining about excessive media consolidation, but Renob can dismiss it all because s/he knows they’re not considering “the trade-offs they must make”. :rolleyes:
Tell me, Renob—what are those trade-offs, please? Kindly explain to me exactly what the downside is, for the average media-consuming citizen, to limiting the permitted extent of media outlet ownership by a single company. Go ahead, I’m listening.
But when it comes down to actually making choices that cost them something (such as parting with a hard-earned dolar), these people obviously accept the trade-offs that come with having companies like Clear Channel.
How you figure? What is media consolidation giving them that counts as a “trade-off” for the decreased diversity and variety that they’re getting? Is it somehow costing them less now to listen to the radio or watch broadcast TV or buy a paper? Not that I know of.
These people must like to listen to the stations Clear Channel owns and attend the concerts Clear Channel puts on.
Or maybe all it means is that they’d rather listen to Clear Channel’s stations and go to Clear Channel’s concerts than not hear any radio or concerts at all, or that they dislike Clear Channel’s offerings marginally less than the few other products available. Why should we consider that an indication that the consumers are genuinely satisfied with the available choices?
*If they didn’t like these things, Clear Channel would go out of business. If people were really as concerned as they say they are, then they would make different choices with their money. *
But that’s precisely the problem with the consolidation/oligopoly/monopoly effect: it means that people don’t have choices about a particular medium anymore, or have their choices severely limited. Tell me: if somebody likes to listen to local news on the radio, and they don’t get good local news anymore because conglomerates have bought out all the local stations, then what “choice” are they supposed to make? You may say that they should just go read the local paper instead, but why the hell should they have to do without the radio news they enjoy just because a media conglomerate saves money by not offering it?
Those airwaves are legally designated as belonging to the public, you know, and they’re leased to profit-making firms partly so that we can get a healthy diversity of viewpoints, information, and entertainment. If we’re not getting the diversity that we want, then why shouldn’t we empower our representatives to take the airwaves away from them and give them to someone who can do better?
If you had any evidence that most people really preferred having homogenized news and entertainment provided by a few media giants with a very limited range of viewpoints, then maybe you’d have a case. But in fact, all the evidence points the other way.
I never said that variety in news is bad. I just don’t want to pay for it.
As for PBS subsidies, that’s costing you what, 30 cents a year? You have a right to squawk about it if you like, but it’s hardly a major imposition. As for the FCC rules on media consolidation, how is diversifying media ownership costing you any money? Media monopoly doesn’t make your radio listening or broadcast TV watching or newspaper reading any cheaper.
Yes, Kimstu, I can and will simply ignore what they have to say. As I said above, talk is cheap. If all these people really cared what the big evil Clear Channel did, then Clear Channel would be out of business. It’s that simple. Clear Channel offers services in return for payment. It’s not forcing anyone to buy its services. So if people were really unhappy with the services it offers, then they would stop patronizing Clear Channel, wouldn’t they? Instead, they choose to sign petitions or send form letters to the FCC. Then when they are driving home they will tune into the same stations they bitch about and buy the products advertised on those stations at the store. If that many people really cared about Clear Channel, they should tune out the stations and boycott the products. That would chang Clear Channel pretty quickly.
But, you ask, "if somebody likes to listen to local news on the radio, and they don’t get good local news anymore because conglomerates have bought out all the local stations, then what ‘choice’ are they supposed to make? You may say that they should just go read the local paper instead, but why the hell should they have to do without the radio news they enjoy just because a media conglomerate saves money by not offering it? "
You hit it on the head – they go to another source or news. They have no right to hear local news on a radio station. It’s a service offered by the radio. If the radio station stops carrying it, and enough people really care about it being dropped, they should boycott the station until it relents. Ratings matter in this business, and stations will take note. The fact that ratings don’t drop when this happens illulstrates that no one (outside of a vocal minority) really cares.
You also ask, “Or maybe all it means is that they’d rather listen to Clear Channel’s stations and go to Clear Channel’s concerts than not hear any radio or concerts at all, or that they dislike Clear Channel’s offerings marginally less than the few other products available. Why should we consider that an indication that the consumers are genuinely satisfied with the available choices?”
That’s life. I’d say it’s pretty rare that anyone is perfectly satisfied with all the choices he is offered. Everyone picks and chooses from what is available, and not from what is theoretically possible. So if someone who says he hates all this consolidation patronizes Clear Channel concerts or radio stations, that means he has decided that his desire to hear music outweighs his hatred of consolidation. That means that he is willing to live with consolidation in order to satisfy his desire to hear music. I’m not saying he doesn’t genuinely hate consolidation, it’s just not that important to him, obviously. And if he’s not willing to actually make any sacrifice for his ideals, then I don’t really put much stock in what he has to say, because when he came down to it, he sold out his ideals to go to a concert.
In my mind, people can say they want something all day long, but the only true indication of what people want comes from what they are willing to spend their money on. Actions speak much louder than words, and unless you are willing to back up your words by making some sacrifice (meaning, willing to part with some money or forgo some pleasure), then your words are just so much hot air.
Renob: *Yes, Kimstu, I can and will simply ignore what they have to say. […] So if people were really unhappy with the services it offers, then they would stop patronizing Clear Channel, wouldn’t they? […]
If the radio station stops carrying it, and enough people really care about it being dropped, they should boycott the station until it relents. Ratings matter in this business, and stations will take note. The fact that ratings don’t drop when this happens illulstrates that no one (outside of a vocal minority) really cares.*
In my mind, people can say they want something all day long, but the only true indication of what people want comes from what they are willing to spend their money on. *
That is so totally freaked out, I can’t even be disgusted anymore: I’m just stunned. You honestly seem to believe that there is no legitimate way for people to express their preferences except in their discretionary spending. Citizens’ rights? Political protest? Pressuring your elected representatives? Why shouldn’t those areas of human activity count too? Why are we to be evaluated solely as Homo economicus, with no preferences or opinions except what we express through purchases and boycotts? Why should we just give up on all other ways of participating in our society?
By your reasoning, Renob, the majority of people can have no real objection to telemarketers, because telemarketing firms have managed to stay in business. The overwhelming complaints that resulting in the enactment of “Do Not Call” list legislation, the overwhelming number of subscribers to “Do Not Call” lists—they’re all just the result of “vocal minorities”, huh? If most people really disliked telemarketers, the telemarketers would all have gone broke, right? Your thinking is market fundamentalism gone to its absolutely maddest extreme.
Actions speak much louder than words, and unless you are willing to back up your words by making some sacrifice (meaning, willing to part with some money or forgo some pleasure), then your words are just so much hot air.
And you imagine that political activism doesn’t involve parting with some money or foregoing some pleasure? People who spend their own money going to FCC hearings and take their valuable time to make phone calls to their Senators—surely even a rational-choice fanatic like you would admit that these people are making a sacrifice for their desired goal.
Still waiting to hear, by the way, what you think the trade-off is that makes it desirable for the average media consumer to get less media diversity rather than more.
You can attend FCC meetings and whine to your elected officials all you want. You may even eventually get some watered down piece of legislation passed that will create as many problems as it solves.
But the quickest way to change (or kill) media firms like Clear Channel is to quit listening to their stations. A drop in ratings has a direct impact on their bottom line: Bad ratings = reduced advertising income.
flickster: But the quickest way to change (or kill) media firms like Clear Channel is to quit listening to their stations.
Cite, please? Is it really always faster, easier or more efficient to effect change by organizing a boycott than by organizing political action? I know it’s an article of faith among market fundamentalists that the market solution is always better, but I would like some hard evidence that it’s actually true.
In particular, my previous example of telemarketing appears to contradict it. Goodness knows there seem to be plenty of people out there who don’t like telemarketers and do not support their products—or even listen to their calls—but somehow or other it wasn’t till public pressure actually produced some legislation about it that they managed to get telemarketers to stop calling them.
Because economic activity is the only non-coercive way that humans express their preferences. Using the government to force others to do what you want, to me, is the wrong way to go about things. Basically ganging up on people you don’t like and making them, with the threat of imprisonment, bow to your wishes isn’t my preferred way of going about things. And that’s exactly what most political activity is. Your economic preferences show what’s really important to you. I find it much more humane to use the marketplace to offer incentives for the behavior that meets your desires. No one is forced to do anything this way.
Of course this is a fairly radical way to look at things and it’s not like I’m militant about it, but it’s the general principle I use when evaluating these things. I don’t have any sympathy for people who try to affect economic actions through legislation. In my view, it’s basically just people abdicating their responsibility to use their money wisely. Either that, or it’s just a vocal minority trying to make changes to a way of doing business that most people are just fine with.
Now you get it! All except the last sentence.
Frankly, I think the do-not-call list is a prime example of unncessary governmental interference. There is absolutely no justification for the government getting involved in order to protect people from being annoyed. Your annoyance is not a good enough reason to enact any law.
Yes, they make a sacrifice, but it’s paltry compared to the real sacrifices they’d have to make if they really believed in their cause – forgoing Clear Channel stations, not attending concets put on by Clear Channel, and boycotting products that advertise on the stations. I guess it’s much easier to make very little sacrifice (a two minute call to a Senator, an evening out at an FCC hearing, one minute at a fax machine to blast fax your protest to your Congressional delegation or the FCC) to try and convince others to force the owners of the radio station (which, incidently, you don’t want to stop listening to) to sell some of their property. I think that’s an illegitimate use of government power. You seem to disagree, and that’s fine. I hope you are at least not being hypcritical by listening to Clear Channel stations, going to their concerts, or buying their products. And if you are doing any of these things, please give me your rationale.
I can’t speak for everyone, but it’s obvious that the Clear Channel formula is working. Please explain to me why it’s profitable if people don’t like it? Maybe it’s because people like crappy music and bland DJs, I don’t know, but they’ve made money off of their formula, so who am I to argue with it?
I actually don’t believe in the myth of “less media diversity.” The Internet, satellite radio, cable and satellite TV, etc. are only expanding the variety of subjects and the variety of views available to Americans. The crowd that’s focusing on the supposed loss of “diversity” is only focusing on a few sectors of the media, and even there, as Cecil explains, it’s not really a big deal: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040227.html