You’re right. “Correct” was a poor word choice in the above quote. I meant it more in the sense of lawful or justifiable, as opposed to moral (even though I find this policy very moral) but that isn’t clear from the way I worded it. I apologize.
OK, sorry for harping on an issue that isn’t really an issue.
Back to the main point of the debate. . .
Then I don’t see how you can logically avoid a slippery slope to pure anarchism. After all, everything the government does is based partly on contributions from people who don’t like it, don’t need it, or are morally opposed to it. Even highway systems and standing armies have their principled detractors who would rather not pay money to support them.
Who gets to be the one to decide which government functions are an “immoral” instance of “forcing other people to pay for things that you like”, and which ones are universal desiderata that it’s moral to force other people to pay for?
In a non-ideal world with a majority-rule democracy, though, there doesn’t seem to be any logical way to apply your principles and still have any functioning government at all.
Again, CITE?
According to this link (which discusses Florida public television stations):
- children from 2-5 comprise greater than 16% of the weekday viewing audience
- households with annual income under $34,000 are well represented (41% of viewers among the nine largest stations
- heads of households with a high school degree or less are well represented (30% to 42%)
In summary, a good chunk of the audience are young, non-rich, non-college educated folks.
It seems to me conservatives such as Renob and Shodan would be fighting to keep PBS alive, since conservatives are the biggest advocates of pulling one’s self up by the bootstraps. As long as PBS puts out educational programming like Sesame Street, kids from bad schools and uneducated parents can’t whine about being illiterate. High-school dropouts can’t whine about there being a lack of services for them either, since PBS provides educational programming targeting them. People can’t whine about not knowing what’s going on with their local school boards, since in many places PBS provides live footage from school board meetings and other governmental proceedings. PBS, like public libraries and schools, provide the basics of self-reliance and independence. Yank them away and you’ll find lots of justifiable excuses for failure and disappointing behavior.
Conservatives should also like the non-commercial nature of PBS and its family-friendly (at least before prime time) broadcasts. Sure, PBS is pro-science, but it does air shows dealing with religious matters too. I personally don’t care for all those “The History of Jesus” programs, but surely religious conservatives eat that stuff up, right?
Finally, I’m not convinced that programming targeting a high-brow audience is a BAD thing. I don’t know about any one else, but I’d rather my child aspire to the high-brow (I want to be on Nova one day!) rather than the low-brow (I want to be on I Love New York one day!) Given that unsupervised children are inevitably going to watch TV and given that they are significantly influenced by the television they do watch, shouldn’t we make sure we provide the very basics of high-quality, no-frills television for them? If we, the people, can’t make it happen, why should we expect money-hungry, amoral capitalists to do it for us?
No need; miss elizabeth’s link in an earlier post already answered this question. To wit, about 22% of heads of households in PBS’s audience are black or Hispanic; nearly 70% have less than 4 years college education; and nearly 22% make less than $20K/year, while another 22% make between $20K and $40K.
Renob’s claim that low-income viewers “don’t make up much of the PBS audience” depends on how he defines “much”, I suppose. Personally, I’d say that one-quarter or thereabouts qualifies as “much”.
Don’t forget, by the way, that some PBS funding goes not to domestic programming but to international outreach activities such as Sesame Workshop Around the World, which produces versions of Sesame Street tailored to audiences in foreign countries, primarily in Asia and Africa. That’s a bunch of poor children worldwide learning English and getting other educational help, as well as exposure to American kid culture and mores, partly via PBS funding.
That cite is unclear on how they define “audience”. Does that mean, for example, that over a given period of time 22% of the households who watch PBS (for whatever amount of time) are Black or Hispanic? Or does it mean that if you add up all the viewing hours over a given period of time that 22% of those hours will be from Black or Hispanic households?
So, if Joe Richsnob watches 15 hours of PBS per month and Ray Poorshlub watches 2 hours per month, are they counted the same, or is their viewership weighted? If the former, then I don’t think those statistics mean much.
Um, why not? Such a difference doesn’t necessarily reflect the relative importance of their PBS viewing in their lives. Remember, for example, that the Richsnobs and the Poorshlubs don’t necessarily have equal amounts of time available to devote to leisure activities like watching TV.
But you need to make a further step before making a Tenth Amendment argument, a step you have failed to make. And that is to assert that this funding is not part of the “General Welfare” the power to tax for the provision of which is explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution. If this falls under the General Welfare, then you can talk all you want about the 10th Amendment, but it simply does not apply.
I’m not saying you can’t make that argument, and I think you are dancing around it without actually saying it to be honest. But it is something you have to address. For example, Social Security was authorized under the General Welfare clause, IIRC. You might not think that is right, but you have to at least address it before you get to your 10th argument.
Well, I don’t know how we determine “importance” other then by looking at the amount of time spent. If you have some data on the amount of TV that rich vs poor people watch that might be relevant, but I think that, if anything, poorer people watch more TV than richer people.
I’m just saying that the data presented on their web site doesn’t tell the whole story. We don’t know how they measure it, so throwing around statistics without understanding how those statistics are compiled doesn’t tell us what you think it does.
Anyway, there are two arguments being made: Should the Federal (as opposed to State) governments be in the culture business, and who is actually taking advantage of this culture. The data on the PBS web site doesn’t tell us about the latter issue.
I have you there. My neighbors across the street were not going to teach their child English, as they were Israeli and intended to return there before he was older. Several weeks after his mother told my mother this, my father had a conversation with him that included the information that he had learned English from watching Sesame Street. He and I could both read english at three. He wasn’t taught it by his parents, and I was. (He graduated high school at 15 as well, so do not expect the same results from your 3 year old. I would teach them to read, anyway.)
None of the science or nature programs broadcast on cable or satellite are of the same quality or depth as their counterparts on PBS. I know this from far too much consuption of both. The possible exceptions are the history programs broadcast in the early hours of the morning , and the programs that are rebroadcast from PBS, such as Cosmos.
I already pay far more directly to PBS than your portion of their federal grant. Who knows, maybe you have the relationship backwards. Perhaps persons who watch PBS end up being richer? It does not seem too far fetched a proposition that the earlier you learn to read and write, the better off you are likely to be financially.
In any city in the US ,you can buy a TV ,plug it in and watch PBS. It is not elitist.
Originally showed Monty Pythons Flying Circus
Dr. Who
Antique Roadshow
BBC news
Frontline
McNiel Hehrer Report
This Old House
Charlis Rose
Ken Burns Civil War -Baseball etc
Sesame Street
I. Cringely
NOVA
Globe Trekker
Classic Movies with Maltin etc
In Search Of
Lewis and Clark
McLaughclin report
Moyers
P.O.V.
Reading Rainbow
Soudstage
ben Franklin
Wired
Innovative programming that has led and changed TV for years. Renob you bitch because you are a Libertarian and think private corps can do as well. History shows how poorly they really do. PBS dhou7ld have greater funding. It really matters. Maybe not to you.
It’s a matter of interpretation, isn’t it?
For conservatives, there is a general tendency in the Constitution to limit the powers of government. There are generalizing clauses, like the ones cited, but for the most part the Constitution (and the Tenth Amendment in particular - even the existence of the Bill of Rights) is geared to saying that the federal government should do as little as possible, and for the feds, “whatever is not mandatory is forbidden”.
Thus, although it is a judgement call, and although the principle of limited government seems to have been largely disregarded since Hoover left office, still it seems to conservatives that you have to make a pretty strong argument that the federal government is the only appropriate agent that can work for a given end. Arts funding, since it is both unimportant, and easily funded by other than tax revenues, does not seem to meet that standard.
As has been pointed out, the proportion of government money going to PBS is rather insignificant. Most of their funding comes from corporate grants and such. Thus it is clear that it is in no way necessary for the government to fund this kind of thing. And since demand for things like opera is too low for consumers to fund them on their own, clearly it is equally unnecessary to overrule the individual decisions of individual taxpayers who choose not to support a local dance theater or whatever, and use the coercive power of the IRS to force them to buy things they don’t want, and from which they derive no benefit.
This stuff about Sesame Street is a bit of a strawman. Sesame Street generates tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in merchandising. (PBS declines, as far as my Google-fu can tell, to make these figures public.) Insofar as the Children’s Television Workshop is doing early childhood education, they don’t need government funding either - they could pay for themselves out of their merchandising fees without bothering the taxpayer at all.
So even if their mission is laudatory, there seems nothing in particular to overcome the presumption that private citizens and organizations can’t do just as well without involving the government at all. Unless one does not share that presumption, and looks to the government as a first resort.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, it is a matter of interpretation, but it is an interpretation that has been pretty rock solid throughout the history of the United States. The constitution gives the federal government the power to spend for the General Welfare, but not to legislate for the General Welfare, except where such legislation is pursuant to the tax/spend power. I think that is the interpretation anyway.
The Constitution itself includes specific limitations on the power of the Legislature. Were the meaning to be “anything not in here, you cannot do” there would be no need to state, for example, that Congress could not prevent the importation of slaves over the wishes of the states until 1808, because Congress is not specifically granted that power in the Constitution.
As I have stated, I think there are major constitutional issues with state funding of the arts, and of PBS, but I think they rest more likely under the first than the tenth amendments. I also don’t know if I support government funding of the arts for plenty of other reasons, which are not based on constitutional, but instead on practical, economic and fairness grounds.
Looking back historically, how can you possibly make the argument that the arts not important? Do you think there should be federal money for math and science research? The NSF?
Ah, but you miss the point. One cannot presume that commercial interests can do the same thing as PBS, because it is evident that they do not. Profit is the driving force for commercial television, and you are not going to change that. Public television provides a resource that would not be available if left to the private sector. The point is not “Does Sesame Street pay for itself?”, but rather “Would we have had Sesame Street without government involvement?” The answer is clearly no. Commercial kids shows have the “Krusty the Klown” formula: Cheap, crappy syndicated cartoons interspersed with a couple minutes of cheesy skits or jokes. Sesame Street was a revolutionary concept: teaching children as you are entertaining them. It was fun to watch the Three Stooges hit each other with hammers on commerical t.v. as a kid, but Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood taught me about kindness and friendship.
Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel weren’t picked up by commercial t.v. until they already had a successful show going on PBS. Shows like Nova simply wouldn’t exist without PBS. There are some imitations on cable channels now, but it took PBS demonstrating that there was a market for quality programming before any commercial interests were willing to take a chance on it.
Good point. It could also be argued that all the home makeover shows are faint copies of the original, This Old House, which started on PBS.
Renob you are utterly full of shit. You are making shit up like it is public financing to support the rich.,or that The programming isn’t new , important or innovative. There is no way you believe this. It has been clearly shown that the programming has caught on in many cases, and has been defining.
You have one legitimate bitch. You are a libertarian and fight anything that might take a penny out of your pocket. Public good means squat to you. Just say it all this crap you either are making up or reading off a libertairan web site are bogus. At least admit that for you it is about the money and your perverted principles and screw everybody else.
Who gets to decide whether or not “they derive no benefit”? Your argument depends on the dubious premise that the value of the arts is solely measured by the amount of immediate entertainment they provide to the individuals who consume them at any given time. According to this premise, cultural goods like opera or educational children’s television are no different from trivial innovations in consumer products, like blackberry-flavored cola or green peanut butter. If there isn’t enough of a commercial market for such products to support commercial production of them, then they simply won’t be available and society won’t be significantly impoverished in any way by the lack of them.
I don’t buy this premise. I think that the arts are more closely akin to spazattak’s examples of basic math and science research. Even if most individual consumers wouldn’t choose to fund them for the sake of immediate personal gratification, they’re still a valuable investment for society in other ways and provide significant long-term benefits.
As I said to Renob in an earlier post, everything that the government does is based partly on contributions from people who don’t want it and feel they derive no benefit from it. I don’t see why you should get to be the one to decide which government functions provide genuine “benefits” and therefore may be funded by the “coercive power of the IRS”.
Funding for PBS started (AFAICT) in 1962, so I would not say that this particular interpretation is that old.
That is actually a debate that goes back before 1787. The Bill of Rights was added to make specifically clear that the federal government could not do anything it liked “for the general Welfare”. See especially the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The feds need reminding every so often - they tend to get carried away.
Actually, it is evident that they do, since the majority of their funding is from sources other than the government. Other posters have made the point that federal funding is insignificant for PBS. Add to that the other point, that shows that are actually popular and therefore self-supporting get picked up by commercial TV. And to reiterate - “Sesame Street” makes huge sums off merchandising. Yet they want to maintain their lip lock on the public teat. Children ought to be weaned sooner or later - ought it not be the same for children on TV?
As I mention, it is only for the last forty-five years or so that PBS has received federal money. Somehow the arts and the republic managed to survive before that.
Hopefully, the individual decides for him or herself. Operas and suchlike on PBS cannot (or at least, currently do not) attract enough audience who are willing to pay for their pleasures. The ones who do want to watch such things want others to pay for it. I understand the motives, but I resist the notion that the taxpayer is obligated to subsidize everything that a vocal minority wants.
I like watching judo on TV. Very few other people do, unfortunately, and so it is hard to find. You are therefore obligated to pay for putting the World Championships on PBS, are you not?
You don’t want to? What the hell - don’t you like Japanese culture? It would broaden your horizons!
IYSWIM.
Regards,
Shodan