Amen!
Let’s just keep pasting this into the thread every time someone asks for examples of the percieved bias.
If it were possible to be fair about the process I would tick “agree” (I think i’m around a 0, -3).
However, licensing of the broadcast spectrum is basically corporate welfare. If we licensed the spectrum at market prices, we would both garner more moneys for the public till, and increase availablity of content in many markets (except saturated ones such as NYC without available content slots.)
So, as it stands, we both subsidize PBS-type broadcasters with public funds, and corporate broadcasters with spectrum giveaways. I dare say the federal government subsidizes public broadcasting to a far lesser extent than it subsidizes for-profit ones!
And anyhoo, to answer the question, I would tick “disagree”. For instance, hypothetically there could be a government-controlled broadcasting, without even a semblance of objectivity, set up by the government to disseminate its dictums, for public meeting broadcastings, and for emergency purposes. That, would obviously be funded through tax (or they could sell ads on it? :eek: I think not.)
I’m not pushing for such sort of broadcasting, but if government wants to reserve that bandwidth, why not, as long as it’s a de minimus burden.
And if an electorate decides that public funding under a condition stipulating impartiality is an appropriate use of taxation in order to guarantee at least one trusted educational medium for many, even billions, is that “monsterous” [sic])?
What are you talking about? It’s ok that you have great faith in the BBC, and seemingly very little in any other media. But, I disagree. You pay for what you like, and I pay for my choices. Do you have a cite that explains John Moody’s memo’s and what they prove?
It’s truly bizarre and odd to me that you can have this much faith in the ability of a government to work so efficiently. Your argument is basically that since the government can forbit it, it simply cannot happen ever. This is foolish. There is a huge liberal bias that many people percieve in both the BBC and NPR. You can’t simply flat out say that since the BBC charter forbids it, that it cannot and does not exist.
Most privately owned media sources do strive for impariality. It’s silly for you to accuse FOX of not even trying to be impartial (because they are more right leaning, and you don’t like that point of view) and at the same time you worship the BBC as above reproach (because they are more left leaning and you do like that point of view). It’s also very transparant.
Yes, because controlling the funding doesn’t have any effect on how an organization operates at all. :rolleyes:
Sure, but only if I brought out that argument right away without any cause.
Lissa made this statement:
She openned the door with this statement. I was responding to it.
The government might as well make a condition stipulating that gravity will be turned off every day for one hour. It has about the same chances of success.
No it is not. Again you mischaracterise me. My argument is not that it cannot happen at the BBC, but that if there were evidence of it in the manner of John Moody’s memos, that employee would be sacked and a very grave reminder administered to the entire organisation not to breach its charter so.
It is to those people who are footing the bill but in disagreement of the content or the political leanings…yes. Example (PLEASE don’t read more into this than I intend): You are a Jew in Nazi Germany. You pay your taxes. Some of those taxes go to anti-Semitic propaganda…sponsored by your government. So go to anti-Semitic news radio, some even to anti-Semitic news reels…all sponsored by the Government.
You are in the minority about this opinion (seemingly at least), but you are forced to go along. Is this not ‘monstrous’?? Sure, it’s another over the top example, and I’m claiming in no way, shape, or form that PBS/NPR or the BBC is an evil institution, comparable to Nazism, etc, etc etc…Its just an example to TRY and make a point. Unfortunately I’m just not reaching you on this. All I can say at this point is, I’ve laid out why I think ‘No broadcasting institution should receive public funding’, and you’ve laid out why you think they should. What more can be said? We simply disagree.
-XT
And again I ask where the condition stipulating that the institution strive for impartiality is in the example, which I would necessarily require in order to advocate public funding to it.
Aye. Indeed, I never for one moment thought that any groundbreaking new thinking would arise herein - all I could ask for of each of these threads is that the arguments for each response be forwarded for all to consider and the exact point of disagreement identified, in order that each side understands the other, free from mischaracterisation. Thank you for your able assistance in this respect.
(Emphasis changed by me.)
Cite?
And thank YOU for the thread series SM…its been great.
-XT
In your opinion, which is neither more nor less valid than mine.
Same thing. In your opinion, opera or ballet or Nova is not good enough to convince people to pay for it but good enough that people should be forced to pay for it.
No, that someone should be anyone who wants to watch ballet or opera - but nobody else.
Not everybody likes professional football, either. Shouldn’t we force people to pay for it whether they want to or not? Sports are important, especially for kids.
Public television and radio gets about two thirds of its revenue from corporate sponsorship. Doesn’t that mean that they are just as biased and suspect as NBC? Ken Burns’ documentary on the Civil War was sponsored mostly by Mobil. Does that mean we need to regard what the documentary said as suspect?
You say it is good to have outlets for which there isn’t enough demand to support themselves. I used to love the TV series The New Twilight Zone. Now it is off the air, because not enough people liked it. But it was a great show - why can’t we subsidize that instead of PBS?
Ralph Nader seems to have trouble getting enough popular support to do TV advertising. Shouldn’t we be subsidizing his campaign, because it is good for the country to have viable third-party candidates? How about Pat Buchanan?
The trouble is the attitude that says to the taxpayer, in essence, “You are too stupid to know what is good for you. So I am going to buy it anyway and send you the bill. So what if you don’t like what I bought - it’s good for everybody that I get what I want, so shut up and cough up the tax money.”
The government has to meet (in my view) a higher standard of proof before it can override my right to spend my money as I like. Taxes for some legitimate role of government - sure, but I don’t see any clear Constitutional mandate for the feds to decide what I should watch on TV.
Regards,
Shodan
Public TV DOES work that way. My local station HAS to purchase content, that’s what the annoying pledge drives are for. So while SOME funding of Nova may come out of your pocket(and mine), Doctor Who, or Blake’s 7 doesn’t. The local viewership decides by what they donate…but the core of what’s proven to be of value to the society, the society pays for.
It’s a small price to pay, but apparently too much for some.
The trouble is the attitude that says to the people: “Only the wonderful corporate profit sheet should determine what culture you should have available to you. If you think that government money should go to anything but weapons of death, too bad.”
Nope, that’s a strawman. The argument is that if you want to attend a particular culatural event, then you pay for it, not someone else. Ballet, opera, and classical music would NOT disappear if they lost public funding. They might shrink in availablitiy, but so what? I’m surprised that liberals are so eager to subsidize cultural activities that apeal primarily to rich people.
Bob, thats just not true. The MARKET determines what is available…and WE the people have direct input into said market. Thats the beauty of it. If something is popular, or if enough people want to see it to make it economically profitable TOO show…it WILL be available. If not…well, why should it be in that case? Why should something that the majority don’t want, and the minority don’t want to pay for in full BE available? If a minority of people REALLY want something, and if they are willing to pay for it…again, it will be available. I fail to see why its morally correct to force some ideal of culture down the throats of the majority…for their own good of course, the unwashed peasants.
As to opera and ballet…again, the market decides its relative value. And while opera and ballet MIGHT not be available if PBS were privatized, you know as well as I do that there is enough of a market for it that it will continue…because there are enough patrons willing to pay for it to make it viable.
Why is that so hard to understand? Why is it a bad thing? Why is it the right of a very small minority to decide whats best for the majority, culturally speaking…what they SHOULD be listening too, what they SHOULD be watching? Whats next? What they should be THINKING? Who exactly gets to decide whats best for ‘The People’ Bob? And by what right?
-XT
This is only true if you ignore the differences between commercial programming and public programming.
If the government didn’t provide libraries, there would still be places to read books for free - Barnes & Noble, religious archives, and so on. It doesn’t matter if the priest only has a Bible to offer you, because books are books, right?
The objections to commercial educational television have also been brought up here. The History Channel, for example, would be more aptly named The Battles & Mechanical Inventions Channel.
Sesame Street wouldn’t exist if not for PBS. The ability of a commercial cable channel to license an existing show has nothing to do with the willingness of commercial cable to produce such shows with their own money. And there are
Why does capitalism apply to television but not books?
Now there’s an idea that deserves its own thread. 
Yes and yes.
Er, ignore that stray “and there are”. :o
Who is going to oppose the Emergency Broadcasting System? They get public funds.
If you are against the EBS you hurt our response to terrorist attacks. If you hurt our response to terroist attacks you are for the terrorists.
WHY ARE YOU FOR THE TERRORISTS?
Road maintenance. Law enforcement. News coverage that reports the facts without political bias (pandering to viewers) or corporate bias (pandering to advertisers or parent companies).
Take a poll of Americans asking about any particular law (or any other government action), and some percentage will say that law is unfair. By paying their taxes, are those people unfairly being forced to support those laws and actions? Should they be able to check a box on their 1040 saying “do not use my taxes to (fund the war in Iraq/put drug users in jail/tap phones/enforce copyrights)”?
Quite right. That’s why we have assistance programs which fund many of them.
Possibly a third less, though.
Then how shall we pay for it? That two-thirds will only stretch so far. Which valuable programs shall we toss?
I suppose we could always go the commercial route. The program would have to be shortened in order to make room for the commercials, and God knows t
Well, no, not really. You’re paying your share, and I’m paying mine.
Say what? If there were no PBS, there’d be no Sesame Street to be re-broadcast on other stations.
Again, I point out that not everyone has access to those “many channels”. Some only get ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS.
Apparently you missed the part where I discussed how educational television programs can help give kids a head start in school. You must also have missed the part about parents being able to allow their children to watch television without having to worry about what bad habits they’ll pick up.
Uh, they kind of do. There are nifty programs such as HUD, ADC, welfare, SSI, food stamps, and myriads of government grant-funded programs which help needy families get low-cost or free clothing and shoes.
So the capitalists don’t bitch all the time. 
Apples and oranges, my dear.
Government TV? The last time I checked, our current government was conservative, Republican, and hawkish.
Your complaint is that it’s “biased” toward liberalism.
Doesn’t seem like the government is getting its money’s worth.
Neither do I, but that’s another thread. This thread is about public broadcasting.