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

[chique]

@xtisme

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.

I think that one thing a lot of “city people” forget is that a lot of “non-city” people don’t even have access to basic cable because the cables don’t stretch that far. And I will not argue with you when you say “available on the various cable channels”, but there isn’t a single channel out there that carries ALL of it, and there isn’t a single channel outside of MPT that carries Minnesota politicians in the raw. I will say that CSPAN carries national politicians, but if I want more insight to a local politician channel 2 is my only bet.

Leaving aside the ‘teaching little kids’ (gods…appeal to emotion)…

I know, that was a sucky point. grin

the POINT is, why should I HAVE to pay for it when I’m paying for cable?

Whether you belive it or not, you have a vested interest in what children other than yours learn. Those children will grow up to be bank tellers, customer service representatives for your credit card and cell phone company, stock brokers, and real estate agents. Do you want them to learn from popular culture? Do you want your next Realtor to be educated by Donald Trump…or by that baby airplane on that jet plane show?

While I live in an area where I could get cable I am broke and, therefore, cable-less. The few television channels I can receive via antennae are to fuzzy to read. Were it not for MPR, PBS, and the internet I’d be listening to KDWB and KQRS. They both have webcasts. Give them a listen. Compare them to public television and radio and tell me what you’d rather have your fellow citizens listen to.

[Lissa]

@xtisme

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??

Sponsors have tremendous influence over programming on commercial channels. Just imagine, if you will, that PBS changed into a commercial broadcaster. They decide to do a piece on pollution. A company named in the program is one of the sponsors, and upon hearing about the show, they threaten to pull their substantial advertising from all of PBS, representing a huge loss in revenue. PBS now has a couple of choices: change the program by editing out the offending reference, or give up current and future revenue from that company.

Since nature shows, quality children’s programming, and documentaries are not highly watched, PBS is forced to make a new line-up of shows. Instead of Frontier House, you now have Who Wants to Marry a Hooker? Instead of NOVA, you now have No Pants Island and Fart Date. It becomes just another channel grinding out shitty, brainless shows, and the one good thing left about American television is as dead as the dodo. Instead of kids learning to count with Elmo, they’re now learning new ways to be obnoxious and crude. Ah, the beauty of capitalism!

Our government pisses away our tax dollars in the most incredibly stupid, worthless, and enraging ways. PBS is not one of them. It’s nice to see tax dollars actually going towards something that really does some good in this world. Perhaps you do not see any value in quality, educational prorgamming which is uninfluenced by corporate interests, but thankfully, the powers that be still do.

[SentientMeat]

xtisme:

Can you name some programs (the CONTENT of which) is ONLY available on PBS?

The BBC World Service is the only high quality, trusted broadcast medium for literally billions of people worldwide.

Can you expand on what standards NPR is held too that Fox isn’t?

The BBC Charter stipulates all manner of standards not imposed on a private institution.

[Blalron]

Let’s get to the bottom of this “hard earned” tax dollar talk.

According to the website of CPB (the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) the annual appropriation they got from Congress was 377.8 million.

I’ve done some googling to search for the size of the entire federal budget, and I seem to be getting a figure of a little of 2 trillion. Ok.

A little work on the calculator works this out to be a breathtaking 0.02% (two hundredths of one percent) of the entire budget!!

In other words, for every 5293 dollars of your tax dollars which goes to all “other stuff”, an outrageous one dollar goes to fund PBS! The outrage! A kid with parents too poor to afford cable is mooching off of your tax dollars to watch educational programming!

I can see why you guys are so angry about this. I mean, it’s not like there aren’t a lot of other things to be outraged about where your tax dollars are going. Like a massively bloated military. Nope. You conservatives choose to bash PBS. :rolleyes:

[GSV_Consolation_of_Dreams]

As a UK doper I will weigh in and tick Strongly Disagree here. Much as I dislike paying for it, the BBC produces far and away the best television in the UK.

Granted the other channels buy in programming (so does the beeb) but for home-grown stuff the BBC rules, followed by channel 4 which also receives some public funding.

I also feel that it shoiuld be pointed out the the BBC is not funded through direct taxation as some people might believe after reading this thread.
The government has given them permission to collect the “licence fee” which has to be paid by anyone with a TV/VCR that can receive broadcast/cable/sat TV.

If you don’t want to pay, you could throw out your TV, or get a specially modified unit that would only play videos/DVDs.

[Rune]

@Blalron

I can see why you guys are so angry about this. I mean, it’s not like there aren’t a lot of other things to be outraged about where your tax dollars are going. Like a massively bloated military. Nope. You conservatives choose to bash PBS.

Well I consider myself a conscientious state-television objector.

@GSV Consolation of Dreams

I also feel that it shoiuld be pointed out the the BBC is not funded through direct taxation as some people might believe after reading this thread.
The government has given them permission to collect the “licence fee” which has to be paid by anyone with a TV/VCR that can receive broadcast/cable/sat TV.

If you don’t want to pay, you could throw out your TV, or get a specially modified unit that would only play videos/DVDs.

Like that’s an improvement! Besides the license-tax we’re now settled with an army of licence-controllers that go from house-to-house to control in a fairly menacing way that people who opt-out of the state-television are not cheating. And it’s not enough that you don’t watch state television the mere theoretical possibility that you could and you have to pony up. So you have to vandalise your television by removing the tuner, and a VCR won’t do since they have a tuner built in. A DVD-player is ok though, no tuner there.

Other channels have been able to create a market with set-top boxes and encrypted broadcasting. Don’t see why state-television can’t do the same. Everybody wins. Those who don’t want to support the media aren’t threatened and forced to do so. Those who have the hots for the state media are free to do so to their hearts content.

[Ms2001]

@Rune

Other channels have been able to create a market with set-top boxes and encrypted broadcasting. Don’t see why state-television can’t do the same. Everybody wins. Those who don’t want to support the media aren’t threatened and forced to do so. Those who have the hots for the state media are free to do so to their hearts content.

I’m sure you understand why such a “state media” channel would be indistinguishable from the commercial channels like HBO that we already have today, right?

[Aro]

Originally posed by Debaser:
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.

Don’t you realise it is this very thing that leads to the bais becoming pronounced, rather than the reverse? If all news agencies only say or report things that the majority of their viewers wish to hear (or what they percieve thay wish to hear), how can it ever be considered objective? As a news channel tries to pander to a particular audience it will lose its focus on what the actual facts are, and instead only say what brings in the ratings (and thus the revenue). That’s not balanced news reporting, that’s pimping yourself out to the largest gang of block viewers you can attach yourself to. That method will *always * breed bias.

[XT]

@Lissa

Since nature shows, quality children’s programming, and documentaries are not highly watched, PBS is forced to make a new line-up of shows. Instead of Frontier House, you now have Who Wants to Marry a Hooker? Instead of NOVA, you now have No Pants Island and Fart Date. It becomes just another channel grinding out shitty, brainless shows, and the one good thing left about American television is as dead as the dodo. Instead of kids learning to count with Elmo, they’re now learning new ways to be obnoxious and crude. Ah, the beauty of capitalism!

Really? And all those nature shows I’ve seen on National Geographic and Animal Planet? Was I hallucinating? I don’t recall Who Wants to Marry a Hooker on The History Channel…must have missed that one. I don’t recall No Pants Island or Fart Date on The Learning Channel, or Travel…weird.

I always thought Dora the Explorer was pretty good, even teaching a mix of English and Spanish…and here its ‘obnoxious and crude’…and I didn’t even know it!! Wow.

Your examples are ridiculous and show you haven’t a clue what all is available on cable. There is plenty of content out there to go along with the Survivor and who wants to Marry a Millionaire non-sense…if you only look for it.

@Blalron

According to the website of CPB (the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) the annual appropriation they got from Congress was 377.8 million.

Well, you know what they say…377.8 million here, 377.8 million there…eventually you are talking about real money. We are talking about PBS in this thread…not those other wastes of governments money. Want to discuss them? Start a thread and I’ll rant away at the OTHER wastes of the taxpayers money. The problem is cumulative…a little waste here, a little waste there…it all adds up in the end to a monstrous budget. And it doesn’t have to be that way. PBS COULD be privatized. It could be privatized under special charter if there is a vast concern that its ‘content’ must somehow be protected (snort)…it doesn’t HAVE to be on the governments dole.

For that matter, 377.8 million isn’t that much (if that figure is accurate as a yearly budget)…why can’t it be privatized and rich liberals (or anyone else who wants it, who uses it, etc) donate annually to support it? Why can’t they make it voluntary to support…a check mark on your taxes to pay an extra dollar or two per pay period to support if it HAS to be on the government dole?

@SentientMeat

The BBC World Service is the only high quality, trusted broadcast medium for literally billions of people worldwide.

We were talking about PBS/NPR in America, not The BBC in the UK. You are trying to compare apples to oranges. The statement was made that they have higher standards than Fox does, journalistically. I’m not seriously disputing that, but I’d like a cite so we can at least compare them to see HOW different they are…from a journalistic perspective.

-XT

[XT]

@Aro

Don’t you realise it is this very thing that leads to the bais becoming pronounced, rather than the reverse? If all news agencies only say or report things that the majority of their viewers wish to hear (or what they percieve thay wish to hear), how can it ever be considered objective? As a news channel tries to pander to a particular audience it will lose its focus on what the actual facts are, and instead only say what brings in the ratings (and thus the revenue). That’s not balanced news reporting, that’s pimping yourself out to the largest gang of block viewers you can attach yourself to. That method will always breed bias.

Are we talking about the news or about editorials here? If the news, do you have any cites for news not being reported because of some perception that it isn’t what the majority want to hear? The news is the news…and if you actually watch various stations (like I do) all the major carriers (even the BBC…which I get on cable btw ) report pretty much the same thing (content wise…obviously the BBC reports ‘local news’ that, say CNN or NBC does not).

Editorials or talk shows…now that’s another kettle of fish. Certainly THOSE have certain bias’…even on the vaunted BBC, their editorial pieces have a certain slant. If you ONLY had the BBC (or a theoretical US equivalent), that would be fine for the news…but you’d only get THEIR slant for the editorials. You wouldn’t be hearing from all sides, because even if they make an attempt to bring in opposing views, the slant would still be there.

-XT

[SentientMeat]

We were talking about PBS/NPR in America, not The BBC in the UK.

Well, apologies for contributing to my own thread. I feel that my argument applies in both cases: that removing all public funding from broadcasting has consequences many find undesirable, just as, say, removing all public funding from the police or libraries would. Aspects of universal education and democracy would be threatened by such pandering and plutocratic influences.

[XT]

@SentientMeat

Well, apologies for contributing to my own thread. I feel that my argument applies in both cases: that removing all public funding from broadcasting has consequences many find undesirable, just as, say, removing all public funding from the police or libraries would. Aspects of universal education and democracy would be threatened by such pandering and plutocratic influences.

That’s fine SM, and it IS you thread (and as an aside, I love this series of threads by you…kudos)…but you quoted me. I was only pointing out that the quotes you listed by me referred to US PBS/NPR…not the BBC. You’ve probably noticed some differences between the US and the UK.

I don’t agree that removing all public funding for a broadcaster has such dire consequences. I think the BBC would be the BBC, regardless of if the people of the UK were footing the bill or if it were a private concern. If there is a market for its current content (and I think there IS such a market for the BBC…worldwide), then I don’t see WHY it would change radically. Hell, I don’t think it WOULD change radically if it were privatized…its content is its trademark, what makes it what it is.

I disagree that removing public funding automatically makes a broadcaster go to the lowest common denominator as far as content goes…there is a hell of a lot of networks that have content every bit as good as PBS (or even the BBC)…and they are privately owned and operated concerns. One merely has to get off one’s lazy bottom and, er, push the remote. And I disagree that somehow publicly funded institutions are automatically unbiased…even the BBC. Bias can be a subtle thing…and if one agrees with the bias it can be invisible.

As to police and libraries…certainly I think they COULD be privatized (hell, I suppose the military could be too), but that’s another debate…I’m not going to stick my toe into that here.

-XT

[Aro]

@xtisme

Are we talking about the news or about editorials here? If the news, do you have any cites for news not being reported because of some perception that it isn’t what the majority want to hear? The news is the news…and if you actually watch various stations (like I do) all the major carriers (even the BBC…which I get on cable btw ) report pretty much the same thing (content wise…obviously the BBC reports ‘local news’ that, say CNN or NBC does not).

I don’t have any specific quotes or cites, nor am I saying that news reporting at the present IS necessarily biased, but was referring to Debaser’s point regarding the market being the most valuable force in broadcasting. I think that if ALL news reporting was left to be dictated by the viewers whim it would not last long as a paradigm of objectivity.

I also think that good news reporting should be something you can watch without having to think “I disagree with that” or “that’s wrong”. If you are thinking that, then the coverage is either very poor or your are projecting your own personal biases onto the reporting. It should only be about the facts.

Editorials or talk shows…now that’s another kettle of fish. Certainly THOSE have certain bias’…even on the vaunted BBC, their editorial pieces have a certain slant.

Can you tell me which editorial news programmes on the BEEB you find to have bias? (I only really watch one, Newsnight, on which I have never noticed anything but strict, piercing fairness).

Sorry to Sentient Meat for the digression.

On preview:

Hell, I don’t think it WOULD change radically if it were privatised…its content is its trademark, what makes it what it is.

Aside from the corporate necessity to now show bloody annoying life-sucking advertisements continuously and to pander to the multi-nationals now paying the bills. That would be quite enough to change their coverage for the worse, IMHO.

[Lissa]

@xtisme

Really? And all those nature shows I’ve seen on National Geographic and Animal Planet? Was I hallucinating? I don’t recall Who Wants to Marry a Hooker on The History Channel…must have missed that one. I don’t recall No Pants Island or Fart Date on The Learning Channel, or Travel…weird.

Yeah, if you have cable. This may be shocking to you but not everyone can afford cable.

Yes! That’s right! Hard to believe, isn’t it? Some parents actually have to rely on antennas to pull in a television show which their children can safely watch!

Even ones who can afford it may not be serviced by the cable lines, and might not be able to get a satellite because of all the trees!

Your examples are ridiculous and show you haven’t a clue what all is available on cable.

I’m one of the lucky ones who can afford cable, so I’m thankfully able to avoid most of the broadcast glurge. I actually get two PBS affiliates.

I will note, that one can watch The Learning Channel without learning a thing at all these days. They apparently have found that nature documentaries and real educational programming isn’t as profitable as A Baby Story, Trading Spaces, and What Not To Wear. Which, if you think about it, is a perfect example of what would happen to PBS if it were forced to go commercial.

There is plenty of content out there to go along with the Survivor and who wants to Marry a Millionaire non-sense…if you only look for it.

Yeah. . . most of it’s on PBS.

My TV stays tuned mostly to the History Channel, and the National Geographic Channel-- but even they have had to sacrifice in-depth programming for what is popular. (Take a few moments and go find the complaint threads about these channels.)

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make, but you haven’t yet shown me that any * free* broadcast channel (or, truthfully, cable) does the same job as PBS.

[Dr.Love]

Does anyone have any numbers for the amount of money publically funded childrens programs make? I find it hard to believe that some of these programs don’t turn a profit (think Barney or Teletubbies) from the sale of merchendise (videos and toys).

[Debaser]

@Lissa

Yeah, if you have cable. This may be shocking to you but not everyone can afford cable.

Yes! That’s right! Hard to believe, isn’t it? Some parents actually have to rely on antennas to pull in a television show which their children can safely watch!

Even ones who can afford it may not be serviced by the cable lines, and might not be able to get a satellite because of all the trees!

So what? Not everyone can afford to have prime rib every night for dinner. Just because people can’t afford something doesn’t mean that the government should step in and start providing it.

If you want to see Sesame Street on your television, then buy it. Don’t try and make me buy it for you (as a taxpayer).

[Debaser]

@Mr2001

And yet you said this in the previous post:
How do you explain the contradiction?

Sorry for the delay in responding to this.

There is no contradiction. I’ve already explained that there is a huge difference between TV stations and libraries.

If the government didn’t provide libraries, then there wouldn’t be any. Television is widely available to nearly everyone for cheap prices. There just isn’t any need for the government to provide this service.

I don’t buy the distinction between TV stations and libraries.

You can’t be serious.

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.

You’re wrong. There is lots of educational television, such as Noggin that has been discussed in this thread. It seems that even Sesame Street is available without PBS if you watch Noggin. The only problem is that you have to pay for this service. You know, like everything else in our society. Capitalism and all that.

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.

What is a “public good”? Isn’t food and shelter more important than television? Why don’t we have the government provide those things to everyone first?

[Debaser]

@Aro

I don’t have any specific quotes or cites, nor am I saying that news reporting at the present IS necessarily biased, but was referring to Debaser’s point regarding the market being the most valuable force in broadcasting. I think that if ALL news reporting was left to be dictated by the viewers whim it would not last long as a paradigm of objectivity.

Sure it would. People want to get unbiased news for the most part. CBS has seen it’s ratings drop after they recently appeared to be biased.

In any case, consumers having a choice is certainly a powerful control over the content of the media that they see. If the consumers have no control, then there isn’t any reason for the public broadcaster to be biased without worry.

[Debaser]

@xtisme

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.

Exactly!

Regardless of whether or not it actually is biased, I should not have to pay for something that I percieve as biased.

[Lissa]

@Debaser

So what? Not everyone can afford to have prime rib every night for dinner. Just because people can’t afford something doesn’t mean that the government should step in and start providing it.

There’s a difference: prime rib is a luxury. Educational television is a necessity.

It’s my opinion that we have a vested interest in seeing that young children are well-educated. After all, they’ll be the people running things in a few decades.

Many poor parents either don’t have the time or the inclination to read to their children and teach them the basics. It’s a sad, hard fact that a lot of kids enter school unprepared with even the most basic foundation. School becomes frustrating and the children learn to hate it.

Sesame Street and other valuable, free children’s programming fills some of the gap. Kids have fun singing along with Big Bird and Elmo, learning their letters and how to count-- things that will be an advantage when they enter the educational system. Rather than being a frustrating, confusing uphill battle, school can be a fun experience for kids who are at least a little prepared.

If you want to see Sesame Street on your television, then buy it. Don’t try and make me buy it for you (as a taxpayer).

You’re not buying it for me. You’re buying it for those who cannot afford it-- those who need it most.

Your tax money goes for a lot of very stupid things. PBS is not one of them. What you should be pissed about is the billions that go into the pockets of corporations in the form of handouts, tax-cuts and bailouts.

If the government didn’t provide libraries, then there wouldn’t be any. Television is widely available to nearly everyone for cheap prices.

The commercial crap is, yes. Do you honestly not see a difference between the two?

There just isn’t any need for the government to provide this service.

Apparently, there is, because no one else is providing what PBS does for free.

There is lots of educational television, such as Noggin that has been discussed in this thread. It seems that even Sesame Street is available without PBS if you watch Noggin. The only problem is that you have to pay for this service. You know, like everything else in our society. Capitalism and all that.

We have free public schools, free libraries, free public parks, etc. Why should public television be any different? Just like libraries, it’s an educational service.

What is a “public good”? Isn’t food and shelter more important than television? Why don’t we have the government provide those things to everyone first?

I thought that’s why we have welfare, food stamps, HUD, and other government assistance programs for the poor.