How do you know the demographics of PBS viewers? I think their programming should appeal to a certain type of person who enjoys what may not be commercially viable, and this doesn’t necessarily correlate to economic status. I’m sure there are many homes in the poorest of neighborhoods that watch shows like Nova.
Uhhh…let’s see, CITE!!! You keep stating this, but I don’t see any proof. My family always watched PBS and listened to public radio-and we’re certainly not “rich” or “upper class”.
Sesame Street and Mister Rogers are only for the rich kids? Since WHEN?
And speaking of, poor Fred Rogers is rolling in his grave. sigh
No, I do not. :rolleyes: that’s why people fought it, and it was changed. Also, I believe it was ruled unconstitutional, a decision I agree with, and not something you can say about public funding of the arts.
That’s not true. I support subsidizing PBS because I like having non-commercial television for my children, That’s something commercial television cannot provide. There are lots of reasons to subsidize things. You may not like them, but they do exist.
The willingness of people to pay for something is a very good way to gauge what they want, but it is certainly not the only way. Opinion polls and voting are a very good way to see in this instance. And besides, it’s already been pointed out that people DO pay for PBS; they provide the vast majority of the funding. And the public supports providing the rest.
No, this is not fallacious. I’ll give you the AIDS, thing, but that is more of a need than a want. However, if you say you want to go to the Super Bowl and do nothing to make that happen, I question whether or not you really want to do it. If people really want something, they will make the trade off necessary to get it. If they merely say they want something and make no effort, it’s a pretty clear indication that their desire wasn’t that strong.
As far as cites for PBS’s audience, here you go:
“These viewers are affluent, influential, highly educated, well-traveled, . . .” from http://www.koce.org/PDF/AudienceDemographics.pdf.
“Viewer demographics (PBS)
• Average age 58, split evenly men and women.
• Higher % of college degrees than US average.
• 75k average income.”
From http://www.livingthewinelife.com/sponsors.html
“Public Television will give you the best opportunity to reach your target audience. The viewer of public Television is the educated affluent with purchasing power. These viewers are more likely than the average adult to make purchases.” from http://www.destinationdiving.com/sponsorship.html#PBS
Gee, imagine that. PBS tells potential sponsors that they have lucrative demographics. Of course they’re going to say that. And perhaps statistically they are a bit on the affluent side. But there are plenty of low to middle income types that watch PBS, just as there are some Ivy Leaguers that may watch NASCAR. Do you propose telling people that they can’t have programming because the demographic that likes it most is affluent?
Yes, some people fought for it. Quite a few fought against it, too. I’d say that during the 1950’s a majority of people in this nation (at least in the South) thought segregation was fine. By your logic (whatever the majority says is the proper course of government), that means you think that was a proper thing for government to do.
Well, I like my Netflix subscription. Where do I sign up for my subsidy, if your standard of “I like it so it should be subsidized” is right?
No, opinion polls are a good way for people to express preferences without paying the costs. Voting is a good way for people to elect representatives that will then force taxpayers to support the projects desired by the representatives.
People buying things with their own money is really the only way to judge what people truly want. When people give up money for something (as opposed to merely stating they want something), that is an indication that it is truly desired. If you aren’t willing to put your money where your mouth is, then you are just blowing smoke (to mix metaphors).
They provide a majority of funding, sure. They should provide all of the funding.
No, I propose that the people who enjoy PBS stop asking the taxpayers to pay for their programming. If you like something, then pay for it. Since the PBS audience is affluent, then they should easily be able to afford it.
What he said. It’s like the “under God” part of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Suppose you are obligated to join a union as a condition of employment, and the dues are $25 per year. The union donates 1% of this to the Bush re-election campaign.
It’s only a quarter, what are you complaining about?
Regards,
Shodan
According to you. Unfortunately, I don’t agree. Neither do most people. Sucks to be you, I guess.
Let me say it like this, is there any reason, besides your ideology (that most of America rejects) that you think PBS should be defunded? If not, and this is just standard Libertarian claptrap, then you’ve made your point.
Well, I think the immorality of forcing taxpayers to pay for programming which mainly benefits the wealthy is a pretty strong argument against it. Of course, if you believe that because the majority wants it, then it’s right, then I guess this has no effect on you. So I assume you don’t object to the teaching of creationism in public schools. After all, since the majority wants this, it must be the right thing to do?
Perhaps, but is it certainly a better point than “I like it, so I’m glad it’s subsidized.” Unfortunately, that seems to be the level of most political discourse in America.
I’d also like to add, Renob, that the whole point of public funding for the arts is to make them accessible to more than just the “rich upper class”. Eliminating them from the public is only going to make them MORE “elite” and such.
You really delight in mis characterizing my arguments. See, there’s this thing called the Constitution. It says the government cannot fund or support a certain religious view. So, no I do not support teaching creationism in school, as it is unconstitutional. HOWEVER there is nothing in the constitution that says we cannot fund PBS (and the arts in general) and the people have opted to do this. I agree with this position, for a variety of reasons, which you choose to ignore. I do not find it immoral in the least. I think providing quality educational programming for all children is a highly moral thing to do.
I’m sure, when seen through your filters, it does seem like that’s all anyone says. But, that isn’t what I’m saying.
Just curious, Renob, should governments stop subsidizing libraries? After all, there are bookstores and the internet now. And library patrons might be a bunch of snooty liberals anyway.
How will eliminating the budget of PBS and NPR make arts less accessible to the lower classes? The only thing I can think of that may make this happen is if Congress took away funding from the National Gallery of Art in DC and it had to start charging admission. Of course, all the time I was there I mainly only saw rich, upper class people (or at least those who appeared to be in this group), so I’m not sure that would even matter.
These sort of places often get busloads of school children from all economic classes. Your personal observations may not include enough data, unless you spend a great deal of time in museums.
Oh, so now you are saying that you only support popular constitutional things. OK. So in Plessy v. Ferguson, when the Supreme Court upheld segregation, you think that it was fine because it was both constitutional as well as popular with the majority? Or what about the Japanese who were detained in WWII? That was constitutional as well as popular.
Actually, you and I read the Constitution in two separate ways. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to fund PBS or NPR (or do anything similar). Since it is not expressly granted to the federal government, it is (by the tenth amendment) reserved for the states to do this.
Good, then pay for it. However, forcing other people to pay for things that you like is, in my mind, immoral.
In general, I think this wouldn’t be the worst idea. Of course, it’s a little different debate, since most library funding comes from local or state sources.
One, I was talking specifically about the National Gallery of Art. Two, I have spent a good amount of time there and around the national Mall. Three, the Smithsonian does indeed get busloads of kids. I have rarely seen a busload at the NGA, though. Most prefer the Air and Space Museum or the Natural History Museum.
True, this is a different debate. But I presume the principle from your viewpoint is the same.
Both constitutionally bad decisions. They happen. Unfortunately, that makes the argument very difficult, because people can always claim that what they feel should be unconstitutional is just wrongly decided at the moment as being constitutional. That doesn’t, however, mean that someone who decides that federal funding of the arts is constitutional also believes that segregation was ever a good thing.
And your reading would be wrong, as the Constitution clearly gives the legislature the power to levy taxes and legislate for the general welfare. You might not think that this funding comes under that, but make that argument. Don’t use the tired tenth amendment one as if the Constitution nowhere gives the federal legislature the power in a general fashion.
To pay for anything that you like? A person might not like the police, or like nuclear weapons, or like plenty of the things that even libertarians think we should have. Or is it only immoral to force people to pay for things that you think are not necessities?
I strongly disagree. It’s not the role you want it to have. I think supporting the arts is an eminently appropriate role for government.