well, currently a 1/3rd of PB revenues comes from the government. I assume if the govt was removed from PB, we would have to find a way to fill that 1/3rd… I can’t say one way or another if more people will come forward with money. What you suggest is ideal but reality may work differently… to explain let me ask these hypotheticals:
Should the govt (tax revenues) fund public libraries? (Why can’t public libraries raise funds from those who frequent it?) To push this further, should high schools/universities be funded from tax dollars (why can’t they raise money from those who attend it?)
I’m just trying to find out at what point you are willing to allow tax revenues to go into education (which are Nova, documentaries, kids programming etc from a PB-perspective) and why.
But, isn’t it you people who are in favor of public funding that are arguing that the unwashed masses are too stupid and ignorant to actaully have a desire to view the high-brow stuff the PBS and the others offer? The electorate doesn’t want to pay for PBS, they want to pay for Pay Per View Wrestling and the Soprano’s on HBO. If the public wanted to see educational programming, then wouldn’t shows be lining up to offer it?
If the people want it, as you seem to claim, then let them pay for it.
If people don’t want it, as has also been claimed, then they won’t get it.
Great!
Not so great.
It’s a pet peeve of mine when people do this. Unfortunately it seems to become more popular all the time. You don’t like what I’m saying, specifically that I’m pressing you on something. (I’ve had to make the same request multiple times to get a response.) So, you go and accuse me of not reading your posts. Shame, shame. I read your posts with care, my friend. Just because I don’t always agree with you doesn’t mean I’m not listening to you.
Cite? I’d specifically like to see the “literally billions with none” part backed up.
No. They don’t feel like making a charter that says the things you want it to say. They make up thier own rules and are going to tax you to pay for it anyway. How do you feel about it now?
I have no problem with publicly funded libraries. If the government didn’t pay for the libraries, then they wouldn’t exist. However, I would like for them to try and recover some costs via user fees and the like. I prefer them to be funded at the local level so that each town can decide how much money they need to spend on such things, because there is less waste and corruption this way.
The thing is this: libraries don’t compare well with broadcast mediums. For a public library to be compared to PBS, then there would need to be hundreds of libraries available to everyone for very little cost (some even free) that provide content in competition with eachother of every kind imaginable. If that were the case, then I’d say the same thing with libraries that I am now with PBS: Why do we need it?
Universities are (mostly) funded without tax dollars. Schools from K-12 are. It’s also interesting to note that the US education system K-12 is largely a failure, with large numbers of graduates from urban areas unable to read, etc. Meanwhile the private university system is unquestionably the best in the world and attended by those of privilege who can go anywhere they like.
I am in favor of school vouchers which would allow kids and parents to choose where they want to go, and their money would go with them. This would greatly increase how well our schools worked here in the US, IMO.
Things just work better and more efficiently when there is accountability and competition. These things are lacking once the federal government starts writing the checks.
The BBC World Service broadcasts in vast swathes of Africa, South America and Asia where no other trusted medium does. The state-owned media in those swathes are simply not trusted to anything like the same accreditation, and private broadcasters have no financial motivation to do so.
I believe I could convince the electorate to impose such a Charter on the institution they are funding. Indeed, I find it hard to believe that they would allow one to be funded in the first place without such rigorous regulation and accountability.
They do pay for it, via taxation. That much is not in question. But do they want it? And, if so, why can’t they pay for it the same way they pay for all the other goods and services they require?
Because the electorate considers that private funding introduces undesirable characteristics, just as private funding of other publically institutions does.
There’s not a popular demand for it. That’s why you don’t see documentaries on the networks. It’s very clear that Americans would rather watch the latest CSI clone than a documentary on the Civil War. That’s also why you see Jerry Springer on morning television rather than a Sesame Street type program.
I think the very concept that television should be decided purely on profit is sad. While television is for entertainment, it is also a powerful educational tool.
Yeah, on cable. Without cable, my TV only picks up ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS. (The UPN comes in very fuzzily.) I wouldn’t call any of these “educational television.”
Yes.
Television is too important a teaching tool to be left solely in the hands of advertisers and corporate accountants. Poor children should have access to educational television just as they should have access to school and public libraries.
And I shouldn’t have to pay for government subsidies of multi-billion dollar corporations like Nike. C’est la fucking vie.
Well, if I recall correctly, the majority of the sponsors of the artists of the Renaissance were the nobles: in effect, the government. The “average citizen” couldn’t afford to have the churches painted, or statues erected in the square.
Wouldn’t bother me it all, were Fox running the caliber of programming that PBS does-- and I’m not talking about politics. I’m talking about documentaries and such. (NPR does excellent in-depth stories about books, people, trends, cultures, history, etc. If Limbaugh’s EIB were doing the same, I’d have no problem with public funding.)
I thought the entire point behind public libraries were that they were free so that people who couldn’t afford to buy books could still read. What about poor people who couldn’t come up with “user fees?”
Because no one else will do what PBS does. Educational programming is not profitable enough to become like the major networks: broadcast for free, accessible by antenna. And you know what, some things in life should be free. It’s nice to think that a poor child can watch television in the morning thanks to PBS in which half of the dialog doesn’t have to be bleeped out, and there’s no one bragging about how she slept with her boyfriend’s dad.
Allowing television to be completely controlled by profit means television which appeals to the lowest common denominator.
I don’t buy the distinction between TV stations and libraries. There isn’t enough demand for educational programming free from commercial influence to get people to pay for it themselves, just as there isn’t enough demand for local libraries to get people to pay for those themselves. Yet they’re both public goods. I see them both as something the government should fund for the benefit of its citizens; you apparently see one that way, but not the other.
The point of government funding for broadcasting is not for news, but for other programs of public interest that do not have a commercial basis for existing.
I think that the government (or governments, as I am citizen of one and resident in another) should not fund news programs, but doubt if others will see it that way and am willing to accept that all news is biased in one form or another.
But public broadcasting pays for wonderful programs such as art, science, and otherwise that would be difficult if not impossible to have on free television without government support. It enables people who would not normally have easy access to this information the chance to partake of some of the finer things in life. In England, you don’t have to subscribe to a pay channel to watch programs about opera, art, dance, music, etc. Same goes in the US with PBS.
And the content you get on pay TV stations, such as Discovery, History, National Geographic, is, whilst often excellent, also biased towards creating interest in the viewers. Boring topics are avoided. This is not always the case with publicly funded television (and I have seem some incredibly boring things on BBC and on PBS). Regardless of small viewership, these programs are allowed to happen because they are publicly funded, and allow exposure to otherwise ‘niche’ areas to the general public that would never otherwise happen.
Of course, I feel exactly the same way about government supported art, but that’s another topic entirely…
On some level, we should have access to independent media broadcasting that doesn’t exist to make a profit and is not beholden to advertisers. It is a noble effort, and it should continue. There must be something out there that isn’t commercial.
I will never understand why people think PBS is biased. This afternoon my local affiliate has shown/will show the following:
Rick Steve’s Europe: Belfast and the Best of Northern Ireland (I suppose one could call the IRA liberal…)
The Amish and Us (that’s as liberal a religion as you can get)
Nature: Dogs: The Early Years (I’m trying…)
Ocean Wilds: Gathering of Giants (Save the Whales! Definitely liberal)
Nova: The Missing Link (creationism is the way to go!)
This Old House (damn rich liberals and their big…oh, wait…)
McClintock! (aka John Wayne: The Liberal)
Red Green’s Duct Tape Forever (which you can pry out of my cold liberal fingers)
Globe Trekker: Peru (it’s all about foreigners!)
Tomorrow it will show: Three hours of commercial-free children’s programming (dang kids should have to play with dead animals, like I did when I was a kid!)
Religion & Ethics News Weekly: Catholic Voters (aaaaalllllllll about the liberals)
Almanac (local news show…co-hosted by an MPR anchor (must be liberal) and a guy who used to be a pro-wrestling announcer (I don’t know what that makes him))
To the Contrary (It’s a woman thing. It must be liberal, too.)
McLaughlin Group (ooooh, evil liberals!)
The Journal Editorial Report (oooh, the WSJ is part of the liberal media!)
Three hours of Building Big (it’s a socialist conspiracy!)
Two hours of Nova (again with the evolution! At least the second hour, Where are the Aliens, balances out the evil liberalism)
One hour of Nature (Save the Wild Stallion! LIBERAL!)…
(moderate libertarian, don’t remember what my scores were anymore)
XT checks agree.
Debaser has done a rather good job at laying out most of the arguements I would have made had I found this thread sooner. With cable and the up and coming new utilization of the broadcast spectrum for traditional TV there is plenty of room for every kind of programming that people could want. If people want it, the market will insure they get it. If no enough people want something to make it viable…then it isn’t viable.
As to the unbiased/biased arguement, its irrelevant. YOU might not think something is unbiased or biased depending on your political leanings…but you can rest assured someone DOES think it is unbiased/biased. And people should simply not be FORCED to pay for programming they don’t agree with IMHO.
‘I’ think NPR has a left leaning bias and so don’t watch it (I’m using myself and ‘you’ as a theoretical)…perhaps ‘you’ don’t. Why should ‘I’, right or wrong, have to pay for something I’m opposed too so that ‘you’ can watch it…when there are myriad commercial stations who are already serving the need and are subject to market forces and not simply government fiat? Again, to use Debaser’s Fox analogy…how happy would you be if Fox was publically funded??
As for the education angle, there are plenty of good ‘educational’ TV on the various cable networks. The History Channel (there are 4 of these), TDC, Science Channel, National Geographic, Space Channel, The Weather Channel, Travel, Animal Planet…etc etc etc. All commercial. Today there is no need for PBS that can’t be covered by cable/satelite and even broadcast channels (in the near future)…and these are all subject to market forces. Thats the key IMO…if people want it, their need will be filled. If they don’t, it won’t be.
No, and I said as much. It was an example. However, the point stands that citizens shouldn’t have to pay for broadcasting they don’t agree with…even if they are wrong.
Really? Can you name some programs (the CONTENT of which) is ONLY available on PBS? Because I can’t remember when I’ve seen a program that was totally unique to PBS…content/subject wise. Its a serious question btw…I really don’t know of any.
Can you expand on what standards NPR is held too that Fox isn’t? Again, its a serious question. The NEWS parts of Fox are as accurate as any, afaik. The EDITORIAL portions are just that…edtorial. And they are just as much editorials as those on NPR, giving OPINIONS…some are decent (like O’Reilly IMO), some are wacked (like Hannity).
Reading Rainbow, Between the Lions, the airplane show, Sesame Street, Clifford.
Nova, Frontline, Nature. . . .and right there you are going to argue. “You can find Nature on the National Geographic Channel!” Well, that’s true. But not everyone has access to the National Geographic Channel. “But it’s what the market will bear!” But the market bears things like Survivor and The Apprentice. Do people learn things from Survivor and The Apprentice? “But it’s not the government’s job to teach!” Oh. That explains the national system of private schools. “No, no, it’s not TELEVISION’S job to teach!” Why not? “Because television is all about entertainment!” Says who? “The market!” The same market that provides such stellar fare as Survivor and The Apprentice? “Yeah!” The same market to whom everyone turns when there’s a national crisis like 9/11? “Yeah!” Doesn’t that mean television has a duty to teach and inform? “Yeah!” But you just said it didn’t! “Yeah! It’s all about the market!” The market sucks. “I don’t care! It’s what sells!” So do dildos (not that I have anything about dildos).
Anyhow.
The programs towards which you unwillingly donate two cents a year are generally good They teach little kids good stuff; they bring into one’s home people from Mongolia; an opera to which no one from Perham, MN, otherwise has access; a biography from a north-of-the-circle Alaskan; the only forum in which local Minnesota candidates can strut their stuff sound-bite free and sans commercial interruption.
There isn’t a single channel out there - cable OR broadcast - that can say the same.
I think what you’re missing that this isn’t just a matter of content, but quality of content. With children’s programming which IMO the main motivation isn’t education, but consumerism; when it comes to cable. Which means toys, or movies or crappy breakfast cereal, comes first; then the “Education”. The problem is the quality is often nowhere nearly has good as PBS’s Between the Lions.
My kids like the british stuff, the ONLY place on network “free” TV to find them is on PBS and they are quite frankly, a level far away from any that say Disney has, when they’re not pushing their product. Network tv is even worst.
I think the closest thing to PBS is Noggin, the problem is everyone can’t afford cable or a dish and I don’t see why their children shouldn’t be able to have the basics.
Er…all of which from a CONTENT perspective are available on cable. Hell, Sesame Street IS available on Noggin…and I think Clifford is on Noggin too if I recall correctly. Again, nothing on PBS as far as content (in this case Kids educational shows) that isn’t available on cable.
Again, as you already anticipated, all available on the various cable channels. In addition, fairly soon the broadcast channels will be expanding due to new technology that allows for better utilization of the broadcast spectrum…i.e. more channels will be available. As to not everyone having cable…well, most SCHOOLS have cable, so that programming is available where its really needed IMO. Cable is certainly AVAILABLE to most people, and the basic packages are cheap enough that many ‘poor’ people have it.
True, the market bears (bares?) all kinds of trash…but it also has a lot of good content, and a LOT of channels devoted to every subject from Bass fishing to quantum physics. To each his own I say…as long as the market will bear it. I won’t get into the rest of your rant there.
Leaving aside the ‘teaching little kids’ (gods…appeal to emotion)…the POINT is, why should I HAVE to pay for it when I’m paying for cable? I don’t watch it (my kids watch Noggin or one of the other educational channels…and I’m a History Channel fan)…and there are many citizens (i.e. those pesky tax payers) who feel that its political leanings don’t represent them (i.e. a lot of conservative types feel this way)…and the funding of it is coming out of THEIR (and my) pockets.
If it fills such a vital public need, why not simply allow it to become commercial and sink or swim based on its real market value, instead of existing due to artificial government assistance??
Take it off the government roles…don’t FORCE me to pay for redundant programming because a minority of people ‘want’ it…or THINK they want it anyway. Let those who want it pay for it, and those of us who don’t…let them have ‘survivor’, Fox News or whatever if thats what they want.
Well, my kids watch Noggin, and the content seems pretty good to me…certainly as good as Sesame Street (admittedly I’ve never seen ‘Between the Lions’ and can’t judge that). In addition, National Geographic Explorer and Animal Planet are as good if not better than most of the content I remember from when I watched PBS (its been several years). I’ve seen shows as good as Nova on cable as well, and on a variety of subjects…some of the History Channel shows are simply facinating. Admittedly, some of them aren’t too, but that goes for PBS as well.
And of course I have a choice…I can choose not to buy cable at all if I don’t want it, or I can choose which program packages are important to me and my family and pay what I WANT to pay for what I want to get. With PBS there isn’t a choice…the money is taken from me without my input or concent. You might say that its not a lot of money, and you’d be right (of course, on a per channel basis cable is pretty cheap too)…but its the idea that money is taken from (some) people for something they don’t use and don’t want.
All I’m saying is that if PBS fulfills such a vital public service let it prove itself in the free market. Let people like you CHOOSE to have it…and people like me CHOOSE not to if thats our wish (actually if it were available on cable I’d probably buy it in a package…just for shows like Nova). Consumers of the new privatized PBS might have to put up with some commercials (or maybe not…you might only have to pay more for the service, or a privatized PBS might get its operating expenses from expanded corporate donations…or it might be so much in demand from cable companies that they can get some concessions about commercials)…is that more distasteful to you than folks who have to pay for what they don’t use/don’t agree with/don’t want?
Hell, I’ll go one better…simply put it up for national vote…simple majority. If the majority of American’s want it then it stays…if not, then it takes its chances in the free market like all the other networks.
I’m not familiar with NPR, sorry. The BBC’s standards are set by a panel of Governors, and their objectives are described in their annual reports (text of 2004 report, and here is “The PBS Mission”.
How can a new viewer tell the difference between the news and editorial portions of Fox News? That’s a serious question.
How much time do you think kids spend watching TV at school?
Basic cable is $50 a month around here.
If there’s a serious political bias at a publically funded media outlet, it should be investigated and corrected. Publically funded media should remain neutral.
“Real market value” is not the ultimate indicator of public benefit. For example, how much would the average person be willing to pay for his right to vote?
