That’s not the point. The government is not allowed to do something just becasue it’s not forbidden in the constitution. It’s only allowed to do the tings that it is explicitly charterd to do.
And you think our constitution is outdated? I would say that your notion of government authority is frightening.
Whither democracy?
Cannot realistically (and, at least has not):
This.
For, otherwise, many will have no access to an educational medium at all.
Is it explicitly chartered to provide education?
I think there’s a slight misconception as to quite what it is that the BBC is. The BBC isn’t just the news and a couple of channels. The BBC is HUGE. And independent. The government’s only role is to collect the money.
Every single area in the UK has a local BBC radio station.
National terrestrial radio stations are:
Radio 1 - pop/rock
Radio 2 - pop/rock for the older generation.
Radio 3 - classical
Radio 4 - current affairs, comedy and arts (also live cricket and the shipping forecast)
Radio 5 - sport & news
All are broadcast on AM and FM, and some on LW, and you can get them pretty much anywhere in the country.
There are also online radio stations that run new and archived material. Radio 7 does comedy, for example.
The World Service - including dozens of foreign language stations
Then there’s the national news.
Then there’s the international news, which is the biggest news network on earth, with offices in nearly every country (except the few where they’ve been kicked out, such as Zimbabwe).
The World Service includes a vast news network.
Every single area in the UK has a local BBC TV news studio.
National stations are:
BBC 1 - current affairs, drama, comedy, movies, sport
BBC 2 - as above but more artsy
There’s an entire network of sports to which I don’t really pay that much attention.
You can buy a satellite box for £60 that gives you free, permanent access to a wide variety of BBC and non-BBC stations.
Then you’ve got the educational works - news for kids, the Open University, the documentaries.
AND there’s the website, which must surely be one of the largest websites in existence.
And there are no doubt lots of things I’ve left out.
Because of this unique funding, it doesn’t have to pander to commercial lowest-common-denominators, and can take chances. Without it, I would argue that we’d never have had:
Life on Earth
Monty Python
Blackadder
Fawlty Towers
Men Behaving Badly
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
Have I got News for You
The Blue Planet
Our Friends in the North
The Goons
Hanncock’s Half Hour
The Office (!which commercial station would have commissioned this work of genius!?)
Ab Fab
Etc. etc.
And all of this with no commercials! For less than 30p a day per household! And people are complaining?
The funding of course, of commercial stations, is offset by advertising and marketing taxes that are tagged onto the cost of goods that we buy. So even if you don’t watch AnyOldNetwork, you’re also unwillingly paying for it by buying wheatybangs, who pay for advertising on AnyOldNetwork. Theft?
Sheesh, sometimes rigid adherence to principle can be a bitch, can’t it?
No, although that doesn’t stop us from having a Dept Of Education…
Still, it’s pretty much understood that education is a state, not a federal, issue. The vast majority of educational money is controlled at the state level.
SM: I will agree that education is one area where it might make sense for the gov’t to be involved in broadcasting. Although education is a state issue rathar than a federal one in the US, that still opens up the idea of state funding of educational broadcasting. And that’s also why I put the “mildly” in my agree on this proposition. Education has a place, but entertainment doesn’t. If I could trust the government to distinguish between the two, I’d probably be more inclined to disagree with the proposition. 
Ah, apologies: When I asked “Surely [science broadcasts] can be considered an educational expense on the government’s behalf?” I wasn’t dicriminating between levels of government.
That is precisly what I’m saying… that private channels haven’t worked well. Pray, explain to me why parents in this country adore PBS kids programming (Sesame Street etc) and do their bit to pay for PB? (Less than a third of PB revenues comes from the Federal and state government btw). I don’t have kids either but I have heard quite a bit (even from fierce capitalists) that the free market hasn’t worked very well for catering to kids’ needs. If you dispute that, you just need to talk to the parents you know well and get their input.
It is one critical piece of your argument. I can understand you not wanting to pay for PB period. I already acknowledged that. But, to frame it as something you don’t want to pay for because you disagree with their “views” is what I’m challenging. You are flat out wrong about the BBC’s agenda and the reality on the ground involving BBC’s broadcasting. I may not be able to convince you, but hey, I have to let you know that you are wrong in your assertion
About +1, -6, mildly disagrees (because of the BBC, again).
I’m in the UK, and certainly not on the left of our political spectrum (I’m not exactly on the right, either; we have no libertarians to speak of over here). I very strongly feel that the BBC is impartial, and scrupulously so. The news is reported on a stringently factual basis, and in-depth shows are carefully monitored for balance in guests: opinion is almost never rendered without a counterpoint. If (say) a Labour politician comes on, a rebuttal is invariably solicited from the Tory party. If none is forthcoming, then this will be noted on air. When the BBC screws up, the wailing and gnashing of teeth is enough to shake the very ground.
It is the hallmark of a truly impartial organisation that everyone thinks it is biased, and believe me, this is so. Full disclosure: I have worked at the BBC, in a position where I got to see many, many public opinions voiced. I’ve seen it called the Blair Broadcasting Corporation, the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation (clearly it’s simultaneously pro- and anti-war), I’ve seen it accused of bias against gay people, straight people, homophobes (I’m completely serious here), and Coventry Football Club. Everyone can perceive a bias in it, because it presents every view, whenever possible, as a matter of principle.
Clearly, I love it to death, and while the way in which it’s funded gives me serious misgivings, I’d rather take an ideological hit than lose something which I believe to be unique and useful. I also don’t want anyone saying it’s biased because lefties say it’s not. I’m not left, and I think it’s impartial too.
Erm, yes. I’d say they have a point, really.
By “programs” I obviously meant television programs, not government spending programs in general. The context of what I was posting seems clear to me. Are you suggesting that a society that doesn’t allow you to force me to pay for your favorite TV shows cannot be a democracy?
(I’m being silly here and asking a rhetorical question, please don’t fall into your regular habit of happily jumping to accuse me of erecting straw men.)
That is a link to a BBC web site that is not in English. Please elaborate on what you meant by it. It alone does not an argument make.
You are making a claim. It’s up to you to prove it. I repeat my request for the third time. Stop with the dodging.
This is just foolish. There are many educational medium’s available without government interference.
Yes, I’ll concede that parents like PBS kids programming. But what you are saying supports my argument, not yours. If parents adore PBS programming and are willing to pay for it, then why do we need the government to be involved? It sounds to me like PBS would do fine without my tax dollars.
It makes sense that the public programming does better because it gets money from the government. Because they don’t have to have ads and they get money from out tax dollars they have an advantage over the channels operating in the free market.
Just a thought that might shed some light on our Euro-weenie thinking (and despite griping about the license fee, as well as a few conservatives who think along your lines, the majority of the UK population approves, even adores, Auntie Beeb):
The media is the fourth estate of government. Each is a check and balance on the other. The State funds the first three; why should it not fund the fourth?
This remains my main argument. I would still be against public funding even if it went to causes that I supported. (Like for example if NPR were conservative).
For the record: I also do enjoy public broadcasting myself. I just recently recorded a two part NOVA special called “Origins” which a friend recommended and will watch it tonight. However, I’m still against the government dollars going to pay for it.
The fact that IMO many public funded broadcasts such as NPR are a viewpoint that I don’t like just compounds it.
I appreciate your good humor.
However, it’s you who are flat out wrong. I’m no expert on the BBC, but from what I’ve seen they are very anti-Bush and anti-Blair. In any case, it doesn’t even matter if I’m “right” or “wrong” about the BBC.
The point is that if, as a consumer, I’m watching CNN and they say or do something I disagree with then I have the option of changing the channel. When consumers vote using thier remote controls this has serious effects on them. If enough people stop watching, then they go under. CBS knows all about this because of the recent scandal they have seen thier ratings drop. If I’m watching the BBC and they do or say something I don’t like, then I have no recourse. I can change the channel but my money is still being used to fund them (assuming that I am a citizen of the UK for this example).
I notice that no one from the left has managed to put themselves in the other shoes and answer the original hypothetical:
If public dollars were being used to fund Fox News or talk radio, would you have any objection to that? Would it bother you to have your tax dollars support a viewpoint that you don’t agree with?
(Oh, and if you insist that Fox News is conservative, then you’ll be met with a response of “You’re flat out wrong in Fox’s agenda and the reality on the ground regarding thier broadcasting. It’s fair and balanced.”)
IIANM, the idea of the “fourth estate” is that it is **completely **seperate from the government, as the final check and balance. That’s the way I’ve always understood it, and the way I’d prefer it to be.
I think (with reference to my previous post) you’re misinterpreting what they’re doing. BBC News always questions every government’s actions by default, since that is its mandate. To you, this looks anti-Blair. But it isn’t an ideological position - it’s their job.
Another reason you may think it’s anti is that what you see in the US appears to me at least to be astonishingly gung-ho. I watch CBS Evening News every night, which I know is perceived as very anti-government in the US, and the tone is so patriotic that I always expect to hear “Dan Rather, CBS Evening News, on behalf of the Republican Party”.
BBC News also presents a balance of views in almost every subject - if they interview an Israeli about the Israel/Palestine question, they interview a Palestinian, and vice versa. If they interview a government minister on a policy, they interview someone opposed to that policy. I recall the much-missed december criticising the Beeb because it had an analysis of a suicide bombing that presented the stories of the victims and the families of the bomber. december perceived that as biased: I perceived that as a confirmation of his extreme position.
As Dead Badger says, all the extreme edges of the political compass see the Beeb as biased - therefore they must have the balance adjusted just about right.
I keep trying to steer the thread away from a debate about the bias of these various places. It’s an old debate that I’m sure we’re not going to resolve in this thread or anytime soon. I disagree with your take on the BBC. I’ve got more experience with NPR and certainly disagree that they aren’t very skewed to the left (no one has even really bothered to argue about them yet.)
We’re not going to agree on this, and I don’t think we need to to have a discussion about the issue of public financing. That’s why I keep trying to get someone to respond to the Fox News hypothetical. Take a crack at it. It’s something that I do not believe is biased, just like you don’t believe the BBC is. But I bet many people disagree with me, and I’d like to know how they would feel if they had to pay for O’Reilly to go on the air every night.
Debaser:
I am suggesting that if an electorate considers that funding a broadcasting institution is an efficient and appropriate use of taxes, that is democracy in itself. I’ll only accuse you of strawmanship if you misrepresent the viewpoint opposing yours.
Yet again, I am struggling to believe that you have actually read the OP:
The BBC World Service provides a trusted, educational medium for literally billions with none, including those who can’t read and only own a clockwork radio.
No. I would simply strongly recommend that it was regulated by some kind of Charter which guaranteed freedom from plutocratic influences and strove for impartial, in-depth reporting of complex multifaceted issues for the sake of the informed and educated electorate essential to a functioning democracy.
And I should add that if FOX were ever to admit to a bias, that it would be in breach of such a Charter. And of course, it never ha…oh, wait.
<Thinks for 5.3ms>
Of *course * Disagree.