I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong on this point. All of the Discovery channels have long since abandoned any attempt at quality documentaries and instead go for reality shows and sensationalism. The shows range from fun fluff to utter crap. There is absolutely nothing out there that even comes close to approaching Nova in terms of quality.
Now, I’m undecided as to whether government funding of PBS is right, but it’s simply wrong to argue that commercial television can supply the same material. If it could, it would be, and it’s not.
Well, we live in a democratic republic, which means we get to decide the role of government. And people decided the government paying for television and arts* is* part of it’s role.
The airwaves belong to the people (and the government in America is the people). I like PBS. I don’t have cable, and I find PBS to very valuable to me. I donate, but I’m glad the government helps too. I think it is proper for the government to help provide for one station that is dedicated to the common good. A lot of things get shown on PBS that wouldn’t be shown elsewhere (local government issues spring to mind). Cable isn’t able to show local stuff like that, and it isn’t profitable for local networks to cover it. But it’s good for it to be shown.
I understand you disagree, but you are in the minority. People like PBS, they support it, and they support the government paying for a (small) portion of it.
Perhaps you are right. I haven’t watched a Discovery channel in a while.
No, not necessarily. If PBS is filling the void of high-brow documentaries that appeal to upper-class people, there may not be any reason for another station to show the same thing. Personally, I think that what cable offers is certainly comparable to PBS. If you disagree, fine. However, there is still little justification that the government should subsidize programming that appeals mainly to a wealthy demographic.
Furthermore, even if these documentaries would cease to exist if PBS did not receive government funding, I fail to see why this matters. Documentarians and those who watch documentaries are no more entitled to public support than comedians and those who watch comedies. If these documentaries are not popular enough to exist without government subsidies, then they should not exist.
True, but also irrelevant. Just because the majority supports something does not mean it is the correct government policy.
Good for you. I think that Comedy Central is very valuable to me. Where can I go to get a government subsidy to support it?
I’m sure you are. I’d be glad if the government subsidized my favorite TV channel, too. Instead, I pay for it.
The common good, huh? I wasn’t aware that TV was so vital.
Good according to you, I guess. Most of us couldn’t care less.
If people really liked it, then there is no need for government to subsidize it. Forcing other people to give money to something through a subsidy is a pretty good case that people, as a whole, don’t want something.
Well, actually it does. The policy of the government, in America, is whatever the people decide it is, through their elected representatives. So, when the majority supports something, it is the correct policy. If you don’t like it, try to change it. But, you’ll face resistance from those who DO like it.
Uh, you can go to the government. Write a bill, get support for it, and vote it into law. Like they did with PBS. If you can’t get it to pass, then oh well.
I pay for mine too. Or did you miss the part where I said I donate?
It isn’t vital. No one said it was. I said it’s a channel dedicated to the common good, not that it was primarily responsible for providing the common good, or whatever it is you’re insinuating here. Television is a relatively cheap, easy and accessible way to transmit information. Having one station used for the benefit of the people, as opposed to being for-profit, helps to contribute to the common good. The people of this country have decided that is a proper role for government to have. If you don’t agree, work to change it. Or move.
Most of us do care. That’s why most people support PBS funding. Which is my whole point.
No, it isn’t. Subsidizing something makes a good case that people want it subsidized. Some people prefer it that way, for a variety of reasons. None of which, apparently, you are open to considering, but nonetheless they do exist.
So because the government is doing it that must mean that it’s ok for the government to do it? You could use the same logic to justify a law banning abortion, or legalizing abortion for that matter.
It’s meaningless. If only there were some document that oulined what powers the government should have and should not have. If such a document existed, we could look at it and see if the government has the power to do stuff. Too bad. Somebody should write one up.
They have banned abortion, and legalized abortion. Maybe you didn’t get the memo.
Do you think there is a legal, constitutional reason why PBS must be abolished? I admit, I am no constitutional scholar, please enlighten me. My understanding is that it isn’t as black and white as you want to pretend it is.
And when abortion laws are changed, no one argues about it, right? Since by very definition, once the government decides something the will of the people has clearly been granted and any objections are moot.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.”
So, I leave it to you: Show me where in the constitution it gives the federal government power to fund television stations.
Why is it the government’s “role” to heep the trains running on time, so to speak?
I am not sure where I fall on PBS funding (or indeed arts funding in general), but your alternative use for government money is hardly watertight.
The government is pretty inevitably involved in broadcast TV. The airwaves are a limited public resource, and must be allocated to individuals to provide TV to the public. It’s the rationale behind the Red Lion decision that allows the evisceration of First Amendment protection for broadcast TV. That’s why I don’t have a fundamental problem with, for example, the government requiring a certain proportion of programming being “educational” or community oriented, for example, although the definition of educational can be very problematic, especially if it is held to include religious programming. But funding a TV network is different. I want to be able to support it, but it raises some pretty huge flags for me.
Without the typical fallback onto the Tenth Amendment and a very particular and not common interpretation thereof, I think you can make a First Amendment argument that PBS is problematic at least. If you have a broad view of what is political speech, and I certainly do, there is an issue with the government funding such speech. Even if it isn’t a violation in and of itself, it certainly creates an impression of a violation, and so it should be an area where people tread very carefully.
I’d be extremely nervous, for example, to see the Bush Administration set up a newspaper with public money, regardless of how many controls were supposedly put in place to ensure neutrality.
The government subsidizes so much of our lives, why pick on public broadcasting? That flu shot you got was developed with federal assistance. The electricity you’re using perhaps was created by burning coal transported on railways built on land donated by the government. That cable television that you’re paying for was possibly helped by a local unit of government granting a monopoly to one corporation. The TV stations themselves broadcast on limited public resources- the airwaves. That college education that made you so smart was partially subsidized by the government. You drove to work over bridges without worry because highways are heavily subsidized by the government. That burger you’re enjoying might cause you more worry if it wasn’t for the USDA inspectors watching over the meat packing industry. The Constitution doesn’t say the government can’t do any of these things. Reasonable people have determined that these are reasonable things for government to get involved in. Don’t like it- work for change.
I’m not saying that no one should discuss the role of government, either in abortion or in PBS funding. I’ve said, several times, that if you disagree with how government is run you should work to change it. I disagree with the way people like to talk about what the role of government IS, when what they mean is this is what they think the role of government SHOULD BE.
Show me where it doesn’t. Looks to me like the people ceded this power to the federal government. Like I said, I’m no constitution scholar. I admit it openly. But I have this feeling that it isn’t as black and white as you like to pretend it is. If you can show me otherwise, then okay. Show me. But, there *is *government funding for PBS and there has been for a long time. There is also funding for other arts programs. It seems like if it was so easy to prove, the Supreme Court would have ruled in your favor a long time ago. But they haven’t. And, honestly, I don’t know enough about it to say why that is, but I’m thinking it’s because it actually isn’t unconstitutional.
Miss Elizabeth - the standard justification would be Article I, Section 8, giving the legislature the power to raise taxes to provide for the general welfare, and to enact legislation thereto. The libertarian interpretation of the Tenth Amendment doesn’t get a lot of support from courts nowadays.
As I said, I think there are constitutional questions here, but I don’t think it is about whether the Tenth prevents such funding.
I would be nervous too! And, if they were suggesting the idea of PBS today, with out any previous track record of success I would be very wary. But, PBS has been around some time now, and for the most part seems to do okay, free speech wise. It seems you disagree though. Can you give me some examples?
You’re kidding, right? Governments have been funding and patronizing the arts since time began. How many kings and queens patronized various artists, musicians, architects and authors? Would we still have
As for “the market will provide”, from what I gather, MANY areas no longer have a classical radio station, because of losing their public stations-no one is interested in producing one privately. Because of public communications, we in Pittsburgh have one of the finest classical stations, WQED, in the country.
And anyone who thinks that the market approach has proven superior is obviously someone who hasn’t watched The History Channel in a long time. It’s become a complete joke. Same with A&E, or The Discovery Channel, which is mostly “Trading Spaces” and home decorating.
And Shodan, as for your argument, if it’s such an insignificant amount, then why is it such a burden? And more importantly, it might not be a lot for the government, but for the organizations being funded it is.
ETA: could someone point me to a website or book about the history of government patronage of the arts and such? Thanks.
So you think segregation was the correct government policy because the majority supported it?
Subsidizing something means that one interest group lobbies the government to make all taxpayers provide money for something that benfits that interest group. It forces everyone who pays taxes to pay for something that is only desired by a few. If a lot of people are willing to pay for something (which is really the true test to determine if people actually want something, not an opinion poll), there is no need for a subsidy.
I honestly don’t know - I don’t watch a lot of PBS (since they got rid of Eastenders, since I gave up on non-HD TV, and since my son stopped watching their kid’s shows) but I do know they have alot of news and current affairs shows, as well as business ones. OK, I’m an idiot, it was BBC America that got rid of Eastenders…
I’m not suggesting that there necessarily is a violation, just a pretty serious potential one. But doing okay, for the most part, probably doesn’t cut it on First Amendment analysis, though. PBS isn’t an open forum, as it isn’t public access TV. What it does, though, and I would think even many of its strongest supporters would agree, is tread a very fine line between permissible and First Amendment violation. Which side it would come down on would require a more detailed analysis than my brain would handle right now.
Well, I guess that means there is no way that anyone will hear classical music. Oh, wait, there are a variety of classical music stations on the Internet. There are classical music stations on satellite radio. There are even stores and websites that sell classical CDs. Libraries even rent them. So it seems the market has indeed provided plenty of opportunities for people who like classical music to obtain it.
PBS funding isn’t a burden and eliminating it won’t help reduce overall federal spending by much. The principle of eliminating it is what is important. PBS and NPR are patronized by upper class people who should be paying for their own entertainment. Government has no place in giving money to TV or radio stations, especially those targeted towards rich audiences.
You don’t help your argument with things such as this. It is possible that a lot of people actually want something, yet are not in a position to pay for it. A lot of people want AIDS drugs in Africa, but cannot pay. A lot of people want to go to the Superbowl, but cannot pay. That doesn’t mean they don’t actually want it. Unless of course you live in some cloud cuckoo land where only wants that are affordable are really wants.
You may be right that the government should not be paying for this, or that people in general don’t want this. But don’t use fallacious arguments to get you there.
