Political Compass #38: No broadcasting institution should receive public funding.

Great Debates
1

Many political debates here have included references to The Political Compass, which uses a set of 61 questions to assess one’s political orientation in terms of economic left/right and social libertarianism/authoritarianism (rather like the “Libertarian diamond” popular in the US).

And so, every so often I will begin a thread in which the premise for debate is one of the 61 questions. I will give which answer I chose and provide my justification and reasoning. Others are, of course, invited to do the same including those who wish to “question the question”, as it were.

It would also be useful when posting in these threads to give your own “compass reading” in your first post, by convention giving the Economic value first. My own is
SentientMeat: Economic: -5.12, Social: -7.28, and so by the above convention my co-ordinates are (-5.12, -7.28). Please also indicate which option you ticked. I might suggest what I think is the “weighting” given to the various answers in terms of calculating the final orientation, but seeing for yourself what kind of answers are given by those with a certain score might be more useful than second-guessing the test’s scoring system.

Now, I appreciate that there is often dissent regarding whether the assessment the test provides is valid, notably by US conservative posters, either because it is “left-biased” (??) or because some propositions are clearly slanted, ambiguous or self-contradictory. The site itself provides answers to these and other Frequently Asked Questions, and there is also a separate thread: Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading? [size=2]Read these first and then, if you have an objection to the test in general, please post it there. If your objection is solely to the proposition in hand, post here. If your objection is to other propositions, please wait until I open a thread on them. (And for heaven’s sake, please don’t quote this entire Opening Post when replying like this sufferer of bandwidth diarrhea.)

The above will be pasted in every new thread in order to introduce it properly, and I’ll try to let each one exhaust itself of useful input before starting the next. Without wanting to “hog the idea”, I would be grateful if others could refrain from starting similar threads. Finally, I advise you to read the full proposition below rather than just the thread title (which is necessarily abbreviated) and request that you debate my entire OP rather than simply respond, “IMHO”-like, to the proposition itself.

To date, the threads are:
Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading?
Political Compass #1: Globalisation, Humanity and OmniCorp.
#2: My country, right or wrong
#3: Pride in one’s country is foolish.
#4: Superior racial qualities.
#5: My enemy’s enemy is my friend.
#6: Justifying illegal military action.
#7: “Info-tainment” is a worrying trend.
#8: Class division vs. international division. (+ SentientMeat’s economic worldview)
#9: Inflation vs. unemployment.
#10: Corporate respect of the environment.
#11: From each according to his ability, to each according to need.
#12: Sad reflections in branded drinking water.
#13: Land should not be bought and sold.
#14: Many personal fortunes contribute nothing to society.
#15: Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
#16: Shareholder profit is a company’s only responsibility.
#17: The rich are too highly taxed.
#18: Better healthcare for those who can pay for it.
#19: Penalising businesses which mislead the public.
#20: The freer the market, the freer the people.
#21: Abortion should be illegal.
#22: All authority must be questioned.
#23: An eye for an eye.
#24: Taxpayers should not prop up theatres or museums.
#25: Schools shouldn’t make attendance compulsory.
#26: Different kinds of people should keep to their own.
#27: Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.
#28: It’s natural for children to keep secrets.
#29: Marijuana should be legalised.
#30: School’s prime function is equipping kids to find jobs.
#31: Seriously disabled people should not reproduce.
#32: Learning discipline is the most important thing.
#33: ‘Savage peoples’ vs. ‘different culture’
#34: Society should not support those who refuse to work.
#35: Keep cheerfully busy when troubled.
#36: First generation immigrants can never be fully integrated.
#37: What’s good for corporations is always good for everyone.[/size]
**Proposition #38: No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.

SentientMeat** (-5.12, -7.28) ticks Disagree.
I hold the BBC in very high regard, and I know that many of the things which I love so much about it simply would not survive were it to become just another private broadcasting institution. Its sheer class is recognised worldwide (perhaps with the sole exception of conservative America) to the extent that the BBC World service is often the only source to which any “side” or ethnicity will accredit genuine trust. (In some places it is the only station even broadcasting!) Wherever I go in the world, I flick channels and often end up watching a fascinating documentary, drama or natural history program. Lo and behold, the BBC logo adorns the end credits with startling regularity.

To which other medium can, say, a villager in the Congo basin tune her radio in order to hear impartial news of the war, or a soap opera offering hope and advice in the form of a story of a family facing problems similar to her own, all in the local Kiruwandi language? Who translates its website into the strange, circular script of Burmese to provide its people with an alternative media source to what the military junta call the truth? Kazakh, Pashtun, Sinhala, Shqip, Hausa: the language you hear after the chimes of Big Ben will depend on where you are in the world, but you will know that you are not being lied to, and that those soap opera characters are not mere propagandists.

I do not see CNN, Al Jazeera, or any other private institution lining up to provide such services. Why bother broadcasting in Tamil if Tamils can’t afford (nor even sometimes understand) the stuff you advertise in those tedious, interminable commercial breaks? As for the wonderful Mr. Murdoch, not only must I pay once to receive his highly dubious version of the news, which panders to the lowest nationalist denominator and can’t risk negative reporting of his corporate benefactors, I must further pay with my precious time as those same shills invade my TV screen and try to sell me things for minutes on end.

And regarding “independent content”, well, the BBC recently butted heads with the British government rather loudly. This, in my view, actually strengthened the BBC’s position overall. First, it showed that it is clearly not the lapdog of the government which funds it (indeed, it is often criticised as being too harsh on government ministers it interviews). Second, the actual nature of the claim (ie. whether or not the government had manipulated intelligence reports) was so trivial that it spoke volumes that the BBC were concerned with journalistic standards even when it came to minutiae which would not even be blinked at had it come from another source (Sky News claims Blair “sexed up” intelligence document; Blair expresses irritation at being mistaken for “someone who gives a fuck”.)

The BBC is an efficient use of tax, subject to rigorous independent audits and investigation, and does real good. If you want airwaves full of crap, an unrelenting tsunami of cultural sewerage pouring from the screen in nauseating torrents of utterly inane ignorance, with ad breaks lasting minutes every few minutes, vote down any such proposals in your country. We will vote otherwise over here, and you will still get the benefit.

2

I am in favour of the BBC’s funding. However, I think publicly-funded broadcasting institutions in many other countries just don’t match up to it. I suggest that the BBC is the exception to the rule, given, for example, the ad-break infested and largely poor RTÉ in Ireland. State controlled media in non-industrialized countries are notoriously corrupt.

Furthermore, as a principle, I believe no commercial institution could operate with such independence; vested commercial interests will always affect output.

Since the question is ‘No broadcasting institution…’ I disagree, since I approve of the BBC’s funding. However, I would qualify that with the necessity for ombudsmen, monitoring, and independence of government.

3

**Proposition #38: No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding. **

Ticks: Violently Agree !!!1

There are few items in this survey I feel so passionate about as this. As it is, the public funded television and radio in Denmark have been under heavy criticism for many years for being political left leaning – I’ve also often heard the BBC likewise criticised (perhaps it’s no mere accident that you SentinentMeat, a fairly left leaning person, find the BBC’s coverage so superb. Do your right-leaning friends (assuming have such…heh.heh.) also?). But whether it’s true that those media are leftist or not is beside the point because the very concept of unbiased news is a fantasy and a lie, there’s simply no such thing. There never have been. There never will be. The fantasy rest on a foundation that assume politics to be an exact science, which it’s clearly not. To pose an extreme example. Do you think a for instance right-wing religious nut or left wing raving Nazi would ever think the news as presented by the BBC to be fair and balanced? Even so is it fair to force by threat of violence even as awful a person as a Nazi or communist to contribute to the furtherance of political views with which he vehemently disagree? No it’s not, to answer a rhetorical question. Which leaves us with the unsavoury fact that either a few or a lot are forced to finance a spreading and furthering of political agendas that they not only do not share but often find directly offensive or moral repugnant. I’ve been told being forced to support a political agenda not your own is even against basic human rights. Now if you want to try and feel like how it is to wear my shoes, try to contemplating being forced to fund FOX News, and tell me again that you’d find such a thought both fair and reasonable.

Whether private corporations are able to pick up the job if the state relinquished is of secondary concern. But I see no reason why not. If enough people are willing to pay for a channel without commercials breaks and all that bullshit, surely there’s a company jumping to satisfy them. If not, well again why should the rest of the population be forced to finance the wish of the minority?

Incidentally do you feel state financed news should be limited to radio and television and presumably Internet? What about newspapers, weekly publications, cinema, etc?

4

Debaser violently agrees with thundering fury!

It’s simply not the proper role of government to be funding television or radio stations. It is wrong for the government to forcibly take my money and then use it to pay for a broadcasting institution. It’s even more wrong since these publicly funded broadcasting institutions tend to be left leaning and will be promoting viewpoints that I disagree with.

A similar phenomenon is the anti-marijuana advertisements. I don’t know how thier funded, but I suspect that I’m funding them at least partially through my taxes. I think marijuana should be legalized, or at least decriminalized. But, the goverment is taking my money and forcing me to pay for ad’s that attempt to convince me that I’m wrong. This is just bullshit. Forcing me to fund a broadcasting institution is the same thing, except on a much larger scale.

Rune also makes a great point. To anyone on the left: If you want to know how the conservatives feel about this issue, just imagine that you were being forced to pay for Fox News or conservative talk radio to be on the air. That’s exactly how we feel about being forced to fund NPR or the BBC.

5

I see the volume of the responses has been ratcheted up somewhat. Can we simply assume that Strongly agree is equivalent to Would sooner be sawn in half lengthways than consider ticking Agree, let alone Disagree?

The BBC, like Reuters or other international news sources, at least strives to be impartial: that is stipulated by its charter. Sometimes, yes, it fails. But a broadcaster which strives for impartiality is necessarily to the left of one with an admitted conservative bias, and necessarily to the right of one with an admitted leftist stance. Extremists will consider any international news source to be biased against them. I would suggest that the two “opposites” here were not FOX and the BBC, but FOX and Al Jazeera. They pander to their audience whereas the international news agencies seek to understand the often complex and multifaceted issues.

In any case, this is just one single aspect of the BBC (in which, incidentally, it simply cannot please everyone ever: a leftist will always see rightist bias, and vice versa), which has little to do with funding. I gave examples of the kinds of services which I think are the product of public funding, not found in private broadcasting (and yes, the BBC does invest in certain cinematic and literary works). Of course you can present me with things for which I believe public funding would be inappropriate. As in other threads, I am suggesting that public funding can bring about a good that private funding realistically cannot.

6

Just clarifying: are you equating Fox/conservative talk radio to the BBC/NPR?

7

Well, they aren’t the same thing exactly. But, it’s a fair comparison.

Talk radio is for the most part admitedly conservative. NPR is liberal, but attempts to appear impartial.

Fox News is fair and balanced, IMO. Most liberals in my experience disagree with this and think it’s a conservative network.

Regardless of what the actual truth is: people should not be forced to pay for a viewpoint that they disagree with. Even if Fox isn’t conservative, if you think it is and don’t want to pay for it then you don’t have to. Even if NPR isn’t liberal, if I think it is and don’t want to pay for it I shouldn’t have to.

8

Yes, that assumption sounds good. But, it’s hardly as fun. :slight_smile:

They fail. Regardless of if they are successful or not, it just isn’t needed to have publicly funded broadcasting. There is no shortage of broadcasting of all kinds, including news, from the private sector.

I disagree. So I watch Fox and my support (via increased ratings) goes to them on the occasions that I do. This is my choice to make. You are free to make your own choices. Why do you need to steal my money to pay for your viewpoint to be on the air?

Name some things that a public funded broadcast can provide that a privately funded one cannot. Then show me why those things are important enough that I should be taxed to pay for them.

9

-5.62, -5.49

Lissa clicked “strongly disagree.”

Private broadcasters are in the business to make money. A program of high educational caliber is unlikely to be one which pulls in the ratings. (Americans would rather watch Inside Hollywood to get the latest on who’s fucking whom.) Without public broadcasting, children would never be able to see quality programming which actually has educational value.

Yeah, there are plently of channels which have no advertising, but you can only get them by subscription. Without advertising, broadcast companies make no money. They have to pay the bills somehow, and so consumers who want commercial free programming have to pay for it. There are quite a few people out there who can’t afford cable.

I really couldn’t care less about any public broadcaster’s politics. I’m smart enough to sort out what’s slanted and what’s not for myself. I don’t need to be “protected” from it. What I do care about is the spectacular documentaries and programs that I see every day on PBS.

In a way, it’s like fine art. I know some of you are of the opinion that the American public should finance the arts, not the government, but such a stance leads to art which only pleases the avgerage: bland, worthless art like Thomas Kincaid. Likewise public broadcasting. Given the choice between free nature films and free women’s mud wrestling, I think we all know what America would choose: and we would all be the poorer for it.

10

+7/-3

[mildly] Agrees.

I’m not in favor of publicly funded entertainment, but it’s unclear that some public funding of some broadcast matertial is antithetical to a libertarian point of view (which is generally where I’m coming from). But I would envision the proper role of government in broadcasting to be closer to CSPAN than to PBS (to use a US comparison).

I watch a lot of PBS programs, especially of the NOVA variety. But they don’t get the viewership numbers that comercial programs get, and so most everyone in the country is subsidizing science junkies like me. Although I’m again taking a US-centric view here, I don’t see how the constitution authorizes the government to do this. I should have to fund my own addiction to good science programs and not mooch off the general public to do so.

11

Priceguy (-8.50/-5.33) ticks Strongly Disagree.

Without public broadcasting, the only available programs will be the ones that make a profit. This means no TV aimed at small groups, whether identified by language, interest or something else entirely. No TV that isn’t backed by commercial interests. Eventually, we’ll see only “lowest common denominator” television, acceptable by many but loved by none, and whatever topics the money wants to see.

12

Just the last coupla weeks, I have seen PBS reporting on (i) how monied interests are buying both parties, they showed footage of Rep and Dem leaders attending “thank you” parties hosted by coporations and on (ii) how the debates are “rigged” by both parties. Tucker Carlson has a show on PBS. A bulk of the news shows are analysis shows where invariably voices from various sides of the spectrum are heard. (e.g: McLaughlin Group)

I can’t believe you can equate this with name-calling, openly conservative/liberal, strawman creating and blowing talk radio (and you can see I’m including the small legion liberal blah-blahs as well)

And, I haven’t even begun to talk about the BBC, which is miles ahead of PBS or any other news service in the entire world. I find it scary you think the BBC has a liberal agenda… either you haven’t listened to them much or you equate their cynical anti-establishment (and currently rigorous reporting on the Iraq war) with “liberalism”.

Your second point about not wanting to pay for public broadcasting irrespective of its views is a fair point. But, unless, each one of us gets to choose exactly where our tax money is going, it remains merely a wish. Besides, I wonder… the sum you pay for public broadcasting is measly compared to numerous other government measures… why does this bother you so much?

On preview: One benefit of PB which I have seen capitalists agree with: commercial TV just doesn’t do a good job of creating TV/radio programming for kids. Too many commercials and sound bites and little teaching. Your thoughts?

13

Debaser

I said sometimes they fail, and that perfect impartiality is impossible. I consider that an institution whose charter stipulates that it strives for impartiality is far superior to one which can say whatever pandering bias it pleases so long as it gets ratings.

Well, if taxation is theft then I’ll withold my contribution to upholding your property rights, thanks. Let us avoid this tired old canard.

Please read the OP again. I cannot “show you” the latter, only argue as convicingly as I can.

14

If there is a demand for it, then the private sector will provide it. There are entire channels devoted to educational television that run at a profit.

You can’t afford cable. So, you want the government to tax me to provide quality television programming for you to watch free of charge?

I shoudn’t have to pay for your television.

[quote]

I really couldn’t care less about any public broadcaster’s politics. I’m smart enough to sort out what’s slanted and what’s not for myself. I don’t need to be “protected” from it. What I do care about is the spectacular documentaries and programs that I see every day on PBS.

This is simply false. The renaissance was privately funded. Art would be fine, in fact, better off without the government getting involved with it.

15

Look, I know you many of you don’t think that PBS and the BBC have a liberal bias. I do, but I don’t think anything is served by arguing about it.

I specifically worded my post to make this clear. Regardless of the political reality of the broadcasters, it’s enough that many of us disagree with the point of view and don’t want to pay for it. It’s wrong to force us to pay for it, the same way it would be wrong to force you to pay for Fox News if you disgree with their views.

I don’t see the argument here. Since we don’t have any real control over how taxes are spent, we shouldn’t ever complain about it being spent on things we disagree with?

Look, there are a hundred things that the government spends my tax dollars on that I don’t like. I’ll voice my opinion about them all day long at the top of my lungs If I choose to. I don’t see why I wouldn’t have a right to.

It’s bad policy. The fact that it’s not as large an amount as some other bad policies makes it less annoying to me, sure. But, it’s still a bad policy. Plus, this is the subject at hand. I didn’t write the test.

16

John:

Surely it can be considered an educational expense on the government’s behalf? Your (IMO hopelessly outdated) Constitution surely does not forbid state-funded education?

17

Of course it is. That’s why the government should keep my dollars out of it.

It’s great that you feel that way. You can choose to watch programs that strive for impariality and as a result those programs will be more successful. I can choose to watch 10 straight hours of MTV’s jackass and that program will be more successful. In any case, you have no right to dictate how my money should be spent on the programs that you like, just like I have no right to do the reverse.

I shouldn’t have used that word. It was only bound to start a hijack. We’ll end it here. Suffice it to say that I consider some taxes theft, especially when they are taking my money to pay for something that I disagree with.

Don’t play word games. Answer the question. I’ll reword it:

“Name some things that a public funded broadcast can provide that a privately funded one cannot. Then present an argument why those things are important enough that I should be taxed to pay for them.”

18

Rubbish, you live in a democracy and your taxes should be spent on what the majority decides. A lot of people seem to have the opinion that simply because tax comes from them they have some moral right to decide how it’s spent.

Taxes are spent and raised in a manner on which you get to vote. I personally feel that you should have to pay for public broadcasting and while the majority vote for a party or person that agrees with me, you will.

My personal feeling is that democracy is impossible without trustworthy unbiased news sources. By far the best way of getting this is to seperate the funding of news sources from ANY commercial or political interests. This is what the BBC tries to do and while it’s not perfect it’s a damn site better than anyone else.

19

If there is a demand for this then the private sector will provide it.

I don’t have kids, so I don’t know a lot about the subject. But, my nieces and nephews watch lots of videos that are educational. They are entertaining, because the kids love them. But, they are educational too. I don’t recall the name.

Aren’t there entire channels devoted to childrens programming like the Disney channel? Surely these channels have educational programming? I find it hard to believe that without the government sponsored public broadcasting channels there would be no educational TV for kids. Impossible to believe actually.

20

:eek: The nerve!

People absolutely deserve the right to say how thier money is spent. And yes, voting is the mechanism of how we do that. So what?