1- The private sector only fills the demands that generate the most revenue. If Sesame Street would not generate enough money to satisfy the corporate bean-counters, then the private sector is not going to produce it. Of course Sesame Street is a bad example, but there are other shows such as a local high school quiz show or local debates or even the governor’s state of the state address that the private stations will not carry.
2- The radio and television frequencies are a public entity. Private stations are quasi-publicly supported in that the government has issued them a license at far below market value. Your local private station has been given a monopoly by the government to utilize a publicly owned entity and sell it to advertisers. That is a government subsidy of private business.
3- The dollars are astonishingly small. Less than $400 million. That’s chump change compared to the military.
I don’t buy the liberal bias theory about PBS/NPR. The far right thinks that the center is far left. What is political about Sesame Street or This Old House or Antiques Roadshow?
I have no doubts that television programs can be a valuable educational tool but to call it a necessity is silly. You can learn mathematics, reading and writing, history, and critical thinking without Seasame Street, The Electric Company, or 4-Square. (God, did I just date myself?)
This is an absurd statement. There is a long, long list of things that are more of a necessity than television.
Yes, and we disagree on the “how” to do this. The private sector is already providing lots of quality educational programming. It has been pointed out that 2/3 of PBS’s programming is already paid for by donations, not the government. It seems that there will be plenty of well-educated young children with the feds out of the television business.
And they can still do all of these things without state sponsored broadcasting. Sesame street will still be on the air. You are arguing against strawmen. No one is suggesting that educational television be stopped, or Sesame Street be cancelled. We just don’t want to pay for it with tax dollars.
The ‘you’ in my statement was referring to anyone who watches it. If you are watching it, then I’m paying for your television (regardless of how rich or poor you are).
That’s another thread. This thread is about public broadcasting. Don’t confuse some of us staying on subject with us not caring about other wasteful government overstepping.
There may be a slight one. So what? By all accounts there are quality programs available on many channels, including Sesame Street, all without public funding.
Why should it be free? You have made no case here, except for your silly argument that it’s a necessity. Surely food, clothing, housing, and many other things are more of a necessity for children than PBS is? Why doesn’t the government provide all of these things? Why do we even need a private sector at all?
Why don’t we all wear government shoes? It’s not fair that poor people can’t afford Nike’s so lets level that playing field too. And, we can all watch government TV’s on our in our government houses.
What people? How do they know what they are getting is not biased?– seems that there is already a lot of confusion given the support and viewing figures for obviously partisan networks like Fox. And CNN is very pro-America, pro-Corporate and tilting right-of-centre, globally speaking. Does this bias get tempered by viewer figures and choices, or does it just continue spreading the usual propaganda the regular viewers love to hear? I for one wouldn’t trust either of them to report fairly on any story remotely related to the behaviour of the US administration or the Israel/Palestine conflict, for example.
Appeared biased to who? In whose opinion were they biased, or was it really the bias of the viewers who decided they didn’t truly like what they were hearing? (disclaimer: I have never seen CBS and know nothing of them). What particular issues did they get called on, and who did the calling? The ITC?
Without internal regulation or control, there is no need whatsoever for a private broadcaster to be objective, when spinning ‘facts’ to suit the wishes, requirements and perceptions of their audience will reap more tangible rewards. A public body can at least be regulated, and whilst not perfect, will not be at the beck and call of some corporation, but of the viewing public directly.
The private sector is already airing Sesame Street!
(At least people in this thread have claimed that it is, and it hasn’t been challenged.)
This point has been refuted and still continues to be made. Stop it.
In any case, it is profitable, because it’s popular. If you don’t like the idea that if something doesn’t generate enough money then it stops being produced you must really hate capitalism. That’s how our whole system works. I know it sounds grand to get a bunch of elites who think like you do and who know better than the unwashed masses what is good for them to decide what they should watch. But that just doesn’t work. The only way to get quality goods and services is to let consumers choose. The resulting competition is good. Bean counters are a necessary part of our system.
The local debates, and Governors state of the state address are certainly carried by local stations on both radio and television.
This has nothing to do with anything. Just because the government gives subsidies to an industry doesn’t make it right for them to start up shop in that business. The government subsidizes the food industry, that doesn’t mean I want to start eating government steaks for dinner.
This doesn’t matter. It’s wrong for them to spend $1 and more wrong for them to spend $1 billion. It’s just a matter of degree. You can justify any spending by saying that it’s chump change compared with the military.
No one has said that any of those three shows is political. PBS and NPR are biased to the left when it comes to their news. They aren’t in the center, they are left leaning. If you disagree, thats fine. Watch them all you like. But, just don’t try and get me to pay for it. I won’t get you to pay for talk radio and television news that I listen to. Fair enough?
I do pay for Rush Limbaugh. He broadcasts over the publicly owned airwaves that the radio stations have sold to advertisers. To the extent that the government subsidizes private stations, I subsidize Rush and his dittoheads. I also pay for FOX news. My cable system pays FOX, I pay my cable system.
If PBS has such a nasty bias then why is Jim Leherer always moderating at least one of the debates each election? Someone please point to a specific example of a news story covered in a biased manner by PBS.
I disagree that FOX is biased. They are fair and balanced, as they try to be. Compared with the left leaning networks and CNN they are to the right, but that doesn’t make them biased.
CNN is an American network. I don’t care how they tilt globally speaking. You are basically admitting here that you want left leaning news. If the news should be tilted to how things are globally, then it would be far to the left, since many other industrialized nations are socialist or at least much more liberal than the US.
If you don’t trust CNN or FOX to report on the US administration or the Isreal/Palestinian conflict then don’t. You see? Isn’t that nice? I’m not forcing you to pay for or support a viewpoint that you disagree with.
I’m surprised you haven’t heard of this. It’s been a huge news story for the past several weeks that CBS News reported on a forged document that was critical of Bush’s national guard record. The document was obviously a fake, and was given to them by a mentally unstable man named Burkett who hates Bush and was admittedly in contact with the Kerry campaign.
The public swithing the channel is far more regulation and control than the federal government could ever provide.
I find it frightening that you would want the government to “regulate” or “control” what the media can say.
I’m very glad I live in a country where the government will never have this kind of power.
These are just dumb arguments. You don’t pay any money to Rush Limbaugh. He doesn’t get a dime of your tax dollars. FOX news doesn’t care how many people are getting cable. They care how many people are watching FOX news! If you aren’t watching them, then you aren’t seeing thier advertisers and you aren’t contributing to thier ratings. You aren’t supporting them.
And I could go and ask you to prove that FOX News or Talk radio is biased. What a waste of time that would be.
I don’t think anything is served by having this debate. We’ve already stated (many times) that the actual bias doesn’t even matter. I think it’s biased. That’s enough that I shouldn’t have to pay for it.
You may not always agree with every nickel of where your tax money goes. Maybe you don’t like the space program but you still pay for it. Maybe you don’t like the military but you still pay for it. If you want to change where your tax money goes, you have your elected representatives to go to. The argument that you should never have to subsidize something with which you disagree is ludicrous. And if you can’t see that FOX news is biased, well I’m not going to convince you otherwise.
How does ‘being right’ not make them have a bias? What does bias mean to you, then? Bias:
So you admit they have a pro-American bias? Good.
No, I want balanced, sober, reliable news that leans in NO direction at all. No spin, not pro-anything, nor anti-anything. Just the plain facts.
If it was real news reporting you would never have to take a stance of “agreeing” or “disagreeing” with it – it simply is.
If I disagree with a war can I opt out of paying my share of taxes for it? If I don’t wish a new road to be build near my home can I have a rebate? If my house never burns down or if I never get robbed, can I claim money back from statutory services? If I have no kids can I choose to opt out of my share of child support / educational funding? No. I don’t recall anyone being granted the individual right to enforce exactly what areas / improvements their taxes are spent on. Of course you can argue and lobby on behalf of having this type of public funding removed, but if the majority wish it, then you must learn to live with it.
What it is I really fail to understand is the intensity of the hatred you seem to hold against this type of funding – I don’t agree with many things my taxes are used for, but I pay them willingly in the knowledge that they will be benefiting others in a myriad of ways. Why is this issue such a bug for you?
I have, of course, heard of this story – I was under the impression that the bias you talked about was endemic – not a one-off story that the network have come out against and apologised for. A single mistake does not bias make – unless they have a history of similar instances?
I never said this. I said internal regulation – by the broadcaster themselves. If they have the freedom from having to raise money via pandering to sponsors needs, it leaves them more free to produce impartial material (and better programming). Unless you are suggesting the BBC are a puppet to the state?
You, I’m afraid, already do, IMHO. You just can’t bring yourself to see it.
Yes, it is ludicrous. Good thing no one is making it.
A better analogy is if you were being forced to pay for ideas that you disagree with. Let’s say that the government is spending your tax dollars on broadcasting to advocate for more military spending, or more space program spending. That would be more comparable to this discussion.
Right back at ya. If you can’t see that NPR is biased than I won’t convince you. The difference is that I’m not insisting that you pay for the viewpoint that you disagree with, as you are of me.
They are to the right of other news sources that have a left leaning bias. This doesn’t mean that they have a bias. It means that they do not.
Actually, I did not.
This isn’t realistic. The people reporting the news are always going to have a say in how it’s presented. No matter how hard they try, there will always be something of thier opinion that shines through. The words that are chosen, the news that is decided to be shown, these choices all lead to what could be called “bias”.
So, any news that someone takes issue with isn’t news at all?
Because this is the OP that we are debating? I don’t know why posters keep coming back to this. This is the subject at hand.
I disagree. A single mistake that was this obvious, and this important does indicate bias all by itself. Others agree with me, since they have seen thier ratings fall.
I said no such thing of the BBC. Don’t put words in my mouth.
You said: “A public body can at least be regulated, and whilst not perfect, will not be at the beck and call of some corporation, but of the viewing public directly.”
So, but a “public body” being “regulated”, you didn’t mean by the government? By the “viewing public directly”, you didn’t mean through the government? You’re backpeddling.
The public has much more direct control over broadcasters when they get to switch the channel to decide if they don’t like a program or channel. If the government is funding it, then the public has no choice in the matter.
Debaser, we appear to have travelled back in time to the first page of this thread. I’ll try not to cherry-pick your posts, but there’s a lot that has already been addressed.
John Moody’s memos admit to a bias. I believe there are similarly documented admissions in other “liberal” US media. These alone would put both of them in breach of the kind of charter which the BBC is subject to.
The point here is that private funding allows bias while public funding can expressly forbid it. This is essentially the same argument as for many other publically funded institutions: they universally guarantee what private funding can merely offer selectively. If all private networks started playing the games FOX has admitted to, the electorate suddenly has no access to a network which strives for impartiality. In that case, as I asked before, whither democracy?
It is, of course, not hte content but the funding which is regulated. And I’m very glad I don’t live in a quasi-plutocracy.
I said that I would point out when you misrepresented the opposing position. You are doing so here. The social democrats position is that taxation can bring about a good which capitalism fails to guarantee universally - eg. providing shoes, shelter, food or a trusted, high quality educational medium, for those who can’t afford it. It is entirely reasonable to limit the specific brand or type of those goods. “Nikes-for-all!” is strawmanship comparable to a social democrat mischaracterising your position as “Privatised-Police-and-Armies!”
Indeed. This is what I intended this series of threads to address.
I assume you would have no objection if Fox News received public funds to educate people about the Second Amendment.
And the argument that the funds supplied to PBS are too small to worry about is ludicrous. The amount spent on the Whitewater investigation was smaller still - why do liberals not simply shut up about it and accept that some small percent of tax dollars are going to be wasted.
But all this is beside the point. Regardless of orientation or bias or the lack of it - the government should not be in the business of subsidizing TV. The argument seems to be that not enough people will watch PBS to support it if it received no tax money. Why are we buying something nobody wants? If it is so damned important that Frontline remains on the air, why don’t those who want to watch it watch it, and not try to send the bill to me? For heaven’s sake, Sesame Street alone generates something like $150 million a year in revenues, so why are we giving them tax money?
The whole notion of “TV is a necessity of life” is stupid. People watch too much TV now - why encourage it?
If you think National Public Radio is so all-fired wonderful, you listen to it, and you send your money to it of your own volition. But if they run short during pledge week, they shouldn’t be trying to get their hand in my wallet without my permission.
I don’t support public subsidies for Rush Limbaugh, for Fox News, for CNN, or for PBS. I don’t want to stop you from giving them your money. I only want to stop them from getting mine.
Sadly, they would only educate people about The Second Half of the Second Amendment.
I contend that not everything worthwhile is economically viable. So we either do without or give it public funding. You may prefer to do without, I prefer to fund it. But I’m still looking for that example of PBS news bias. It doesn’t even have to have a cite, just tell me exactly what PBS does that strikes you as biased. Come on, someone?
There are 504 hours of programming on CBS, NBC, and ABC during a one week period. Surely there must be 4 1/2 hours of good TV on each. Your challenge: Name three quality childrens programs on each of the big three networks.
I’m having a Rand flash back moment here…did you really say (and mean) “I contend that not everything worthwhile is economically viable.”???
Could you list some things that are worthwhile but are not economically viable???
You got one part right though (well half)…if its not economically viable we do without it. Why should the public fund something that’s NOT economically viable? Where does the funding stop?
As to the bias, why do you (and others in this thread) keep bringing it up? Don’t you get it?? It DOES NOT MATTER IF THERE IS A REAL BIAS OR NOT! If a tax payer or tax payers PERCEIVE that there is a bias, then its monsterous to force them to pay for it out of government funds! It would be like asking a black man to pay for KKK advertising as part of his taxes…certainly to the KKK there is no ‘bias’, but the black man might see it a bit differently, no? Yes, its an over the top example, but this seems to be a hard concept to get through for some odd reason.
Why is this so hard to understand. There are a hell of a lot of people that DO think that NPR and PBS are biased…by their perception. Take a poll of Americans and some non-trivial percentage are going to say they THINK NPR/PBS is left biased. Take another poll and some non-trivial percentage of Americans are going to say they THINK Fox is right biased. See? In the case of Fox, you don’t have to tune in to show your lack of support. However, by paying his taxes Debaser is unwillingly showing HIS support for something he does not agree too.
Well, let’s take ballet. Not a lot of people like it. The networks would never pick it up. But it’s an attribute of a cultured civilization so it is worthwhile but not viable. Same thing with opera. Not everyone that likes opera can get to the big cities and see it live. Not a lot of commercial demand for it so the networks don’t show it- but someone should. That someone would be PBS. Museums are another thing that by themselves cannot make it economically but with government subsidies provide something that as a society is sorely needed. We like to think of ourselves a cultured species, yet economically an art gallery cannot compete with a football stadium. This is where prudent public investment in the arts and sciences is needed.
As for news, what you see on the networks is subject to the whims and caprices of the advertisers. I say that it is good that we have an outlet that has no need of corporate sponsorship. If Ford is a major sponsor of let’s say NBC, then it makes investigative reporting of Ford by NBC problematic. I say we need both government subsidized stations and news reporting and commercial ones as well.
Your example is perfect and you’re the one who’s missing it.
Tell that black man that he has a choice no money for klan, but also no money for Black History Month, because the KKK doesn’t want to pay taxes for THAT.
What’s he gonna choose? To deny millions of people the chance to learn something about “black” culture which BTW would offset the ads of the KKK…or have a few more dollars in his pocket?
Your hypothetical proves exactly nothing, because it is, well, a hypothetical. We have no way of knowing hte answer. But if you want my guess, it would be that most Blacks would choose to keep their own money and fund neither. If they do chose to fund Black History month, then great. Why should I fund it?