Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are we now facing legislated ignorance? (Re: U.S. Public Broadcasting funding)
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 31 of 45 (219542)
06-25-2005 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Monk
06-25-2005 12:18 PM


Re: Value received?
Of course, from your point of view, there are the elite few who know the "truth".
Please point out where I have said anything like that?
What did the rest of your post have to do with the thread?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Monk, posted 06-25-2005 12:18 PM Monk has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 32 of 45 (219560)
06-25-2005 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Monk
06-25-2005 10:46 AM


The original justification for it was that PBS and NPR offered artistic and cultural programming not available elsewhere.
Incorrect. The original justification was that, since the airwaves are the property of the public and administered by the public trust, the government should provide the necessary access for public citizens to broadcast on a portion of that spectrum set aside for their exclusive use.
That justification is as valid today as it was then, 500 channels or no.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Monk, posted 06-25-2005 10:46 AM Monk has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 33 of 45 (219579)
06-25-2005 4:05 PM


What about content?
The opponents of public funding for PBC have mounted primarily economic arguments against public support.
The stations are viable enough to survive on their own.
Public funds are only a small part of their budget.
They could withstand the loss of public support.
They already have some forms of commercial underwriting.
The money they receive would be better spent for decifit reduction.
The only non-economic argument so far is that, with 500 channels, the original mission of the CPB has been rendered obsolete, and I think Crash has pretty much demolished that contention. I would also add yes, there are 500 channels, but most are total trash and very few approach the quality of programming available on PBS, with the possible exception of Discovery, and then only for science programing - not political analysis. I also note that no one has opted to defend the accusation of biased content, the objection raised by Tomlinson as justification for the original cuts.
Arugments FOR continued support remain far more convincing at this point in the thread.
Jar points out that it is good value for taxpayer dollar, and I agree.
Schraf says it is the only place to hear real, in-depth interviews and this is also definitely true.
Holmes says:
"I think there is a reason to have at least one protected "public" source of information."
I would say there is more than one reason. To have a network 'by the people, for the people', as Crash pointed out. To have a network with *education as a goal* as opposed to profit, market share and making money for sponsors. To have a source for news and information that is unpolluted with putrid pharmaceutical commercials (a personal peeve w/r/t to network news these days). To have a source for educational children's shows where the kids are not being bombarded with ads for junk food and video games. Etc, etc.
Let's forget the economics - the amounts are trivial for the federal budget - and discuss the 'product' the public is paying for. In my view, the economic arguments are all suspect because they implicitly assume that the 'product' will not change if the PBC becomes 'for profit' instead of 'non-profit'. I say that it will, because the non-profit status of PBC is perhaps the most important reason for continued public support, even if it is only a token amount.
Commercial spots will interrupt the in-depth interviews and they will become truncated. Factual documentaries with content possibly disturbing to viewers will be edited to ensure sponsors and their audiences are not confronted with anything potentially controversial. The whole format of the stations and their programming content will inevitably be degraded for sake of chasing money and competing for market share and sponsors, even if it is just to ensure their survival. They will be driven in the same direction as all the other commercial channels - dumbed-down content polluted with advertising.
This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-25-2005 03:08 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Monk, posted 06-25-2005 6:13 PM EZscience has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 34 of 45 (219593)
06-25-2005 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by paisano
06-24-2005 8:02 PM


Wouldn't that just mean that the private corporate interests would fund only the viewpoints and products that they think will make the most money, not what may be most needed?
quote:
A business that provides products or services that nobody needs is a candidate for bankruptcy.
Hold on.
I was talking about companies trying to make profits.
Often a profit motive caters to the largest market, also known as the lowest common denominator, in media especially.
There's a reason there is so much crap on commercial and cable TV; they have to appeal to the masses in order to get the most viewers in order to sell the most ad space to General Mills or Gap or Ford or Kraft.
And, let's not forget that if General Mills or Gap or Ford or Kraft is worried that a show might offend the delicate political or social sensitivites of that lowest common denominator, they will pull their ad money. This kind of financial pressure is what keeps the shows safe and dumb and completely challenge- and education-free.
That's the kind of thing publicly-funded media avoids.
quote:
Your question seems to presuppose that businesses have a primary purpose other than providing services or products that are needed.
No, most businesses' primary purpose is to generate profit, and also to create wants and needs where there weren't any before.
Did anyone ever really need a Beanie Baby? Or a Cabbage Patch Doll? What about those silly cat tire rims that spin when your car is at a standstill?
Medical insurance companies, for example, routinely deny expensive treatments to their customers who need them because it cuts into profits.
quote:
The market for PBS-type programming may be small compared to more entertainment oriented programming, but it is not zero. No advocate of publicly funded PBS on this thread has yet provided evidence that a privatized PBS could not capture a market share equivalent to its current share.
That's not the point.
The point is, the corporations which fund PBS are going to expect to have influence over content in exchange for their cash.
quote:
The public PBS advocates argument is similar to arguing that the government must manufacture and distribute unicycles if the major bicycle manufacturers do not, just because some people like to ride unicycles ("and they're non-polluting !).
Well, if the analogy is to be followed completely, the unicycles should be of much superior quality and of much smaller cost than the bicycles, and available to everyone without constant recordings playing from a box bolted to the metal tube that tells me to buy this cereal or that car, or the other processed cheese food like on the junky, expensive bicycles.
Then sure, I'd buy one.
quote:
In 1969, commercial television was broadcast only and dominated by the Big 3 networks. This is no longer the case. If there was a case for a public PBS in 1969, technological developments have altered the landscape and there is no longer such a case.
I completely disagree. It is even more important now bvecause the quality of the 3 networks used to be so much higher back in '69.
quote:
Or should "public interests" extort funding for viewpoints and products that are no longer needed or can be supplied just as efficiently from private sources ?
How can it be supplied from corporate interests without any corporate influence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by paisano, posted 06-24-2005 8:02 PM paisano has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 35 of 45 (219594)
06-25-2005 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Monk
06-25-2005 10:46 AM


quote:
I realize the consolidation of ownership gives a false impression that diversity of opinion and viewpoints is proportional to the quantity of available channels. Still, broadcast options available to joe consumer is much more diverse and readily available than when PBS and NPR were first created.
Well, only marginally.
There is a LOT of utter crap on TV.
Sure, there's several nature, history, and animal-themed channels, but none of them hold a candle to the quality of scholarship of PBS programs like NOVA.
I mean, the History channel is a joke.
Show me anything on any single cable or network channel that is as consistently excellent as NOVA or the Ken Burns documentaries, let alone on a bunch of channels
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-25-2005 05:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Monk, posted 06-25-2005 10:46 AM Monk has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 36 of 45 (219597)
06-25-2005 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by EZscience
06-25-2005 4:05 PM


In perspective
EZscience writes:
In my view, the economic arguments are all suspect because they implicitly assume that the 'product' will not change if the PBC becomes 'for profit' instead of 'non-profit'. I say that it will.
I disagree. The legal status of a corporation need not change as a result of a shift in revenue source. PBS and NPR are currently non-profit organizations and they would retain that non-profit status after federal funding has been discontinued. The withdrawal of federal support will not distort their culture by altering their corporate mission towards the exclusive pursuit of profit.
All the arguments using the terrible problems associated with the greedy pursuit of profit in for-profit corporations fail as a motivating factor because they will continue to be non-profits. I don’t see a 15% shift in the revenue source as causing them to change their status to a for-profit corporation.
Besides, they will need to retain their non-profit status in order to continue to receive State and local government funding as well as tax exempt status. The 15% shift in their revenue source represents a marketing challenge certainly, but one that can be overcome with the end result being a more efficient organization.
I’ve already discussed commercial spots in my previous thread. PBS has them now and will continue to have them. I don’t believe a case has been made that the current commercial sponsors are having undue influence on programming to the detriment of the public good. The withdrawal of federal funding will not change that. Whatever you believe the corporate influence to be right now, good or bad, it will stay the same after federal funding has been phased out.
Education can, should, and will continue to be one of the goals at the network. PBS and NPR can and will continue to be the network by the people and for the people. The primary source of their support comes from the public, from memberships, from viewers like you as often heard on the PBS telemarketing campaigns. The remaining sources are from corporate sponsorship, foundations, colleges, auctions, among others None of that will change. Only federal sponsorship.
I will add a caveat to my discussion with the issue of upgrading the member station infrastructure. I would support a one-time federal appropriation to provide necessary upgrades, (i.e digital equipment, etc.) and then begin a program to phase out federal support. State and local government support would remain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by EZscience, posted 06-25-2005 4:05 PM EZscience has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 06-25-2005 6:22 PM Monk has replied
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 06-25-2005 7:22 PM Monk has replied
 Message 45 by Silent H, posted 06-26-2005 4:21 AM Monk has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 37 of 45 (219598)
06-25-2005 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Monk
06-25-2005 6:13 PM


Re: In perspective
Monk, if NPR and PBS were generally supportive of right wing conservative viewpoints to the exclusion of all others, do you believe that the current proposal to cut funding would have even been hinted at?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Monk, posted 06-25-2005 6:13 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Monk, posted 06-25-2005 7:30 PM nator has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 38 of 45 (219604)
06-25-2005 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Monk
06-25-2005 6:13 PM


Re: In perspective
I'm not sure I find your proposal entirely objectionable, but I ask one question for clarification.
Do you consider the waived FCC license fees part of the federal support you propose be eliminated?
Other than that, disentangling public broadcasting from federal money would, in my opinion, help in its mission and purpose to operate free of government interference. Especially in light of Congress these days trying to establish an "ombudsman" to make sure that PBS toes the party line.
I don't like the government, especially this government, telling PBS what to say and what not to say. PBS's federal funding makes that a perennial possibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Monk, posted 06-25-2005 6:13 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Monk, posted 06-25-2005 7:58 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 39 of 45 (219605)
06-25-2005 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by nator
06-25-2005 6:22 PM


Re: In perspective
Schraf writes:
Monk, if NPR and PBS were generally supportive of right wing conservative viewpoints to the exclusion of all others, do you believe that the current proposal to cut funding would have even been hinted at?
The way you phrase the hypothetical forces a ‘no’ answer. If your hypothetical were correct then I’m confident that Reps wouldn’t make a bid deal out of it. The Dems would though. They would be the ones screaming for funding cuts.
Debate over federal funding for PBS and NPR is not a new issue. It seems to surface every few years and it always gets defeated because it is so easy to politicize. Who wants to eliminate big bird? Who would vote to rid us of Bert and Ernie, NOVA, and all of the other fine programming. The answer is no politician ever does.
Here’s an example, Rep. David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, said the 25 percent reduction in funding for the coming year would be ‘disastrous’ for public broadcasting, which he said is the most valuable resource we have for getting quality programming for children."
Now what politician is going to oppose programming for children? The 25% reduction the congressman is speaking of is only the federal appropriation portion. Given my previous post, we know this amount actually represents 25% of the 15% of the total funding for PBS and NPR or 3.8%. The actual reduction in real dollars is 3.8%. But nobody hears that, they hear 25% or 50% and fear the elimination of these organizations altogether.
Aside from the economics, I realize your question is more on the issue of media bias. To that I would say I found Bill Moyers decidedly left wing in his views despite his occasional conservative guests. But he is not on the air anymore and I haven’t seen much evidence of bias since his departure. So no, I don’t believe there is a political bias as regards to PBS. NPR on the other hand may be a different story, I couldn’t say because I haven’t listened to it for quite some time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 06-25-2005 6:22 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by nator, posted 06-25-2005 10:33 PM Monk has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 40 of 45 (219612)
06-25-2005 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by crashfrog
06-25-2005 7:22 PM


Re: In perspective
Do you consider the waived FCC license fees part of the federal support you propose be eliminated?
I would say no. The elimination of federal funding would be difficult enough without adding expenses such as additional FCC fees that had previously been waived. There may be legal ramifications that would prevent the waiver. Even so, as part of the privatization process, special considerations could be made to maintain the waiver.
Membership has been on the decline at PBS and I realize they are having budget problems with federal funding let alone having the funding removed. Still, other non profits have to deal with these situations, PBS and NPR can also especially if a good plan were put together and funding was removed gradually. Nobody wants to see PBS or NPR off the air.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 06-25-2005 7:22 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by nator, posted 06-25-2005 10:38 PM Monk has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 41 of 45 (219631)
06-25-2005 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Monk
06-25-2005 7:30 PM


Re: In perspective
quote:
Here’s an example, Rep. David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, said the 25 percent reduction in funding for the coming year would be ‘disastrous’ for public broadcasting, which he said is the most valuable resource we have for getting quality programming for children."
Now what politician is going to oppose programming for children?
Well, considering that there is NO commercial network that is producing any programming for children that even approaches the quality of PBS's, I think that is a completely fair statement.
quote:
The 25% reduction the congressman is speaking of is only the federal appropriation portion. Given my previous post, we know this amount actually represents 25% of the 15% of the total funding for PBS and NPR or 3.8%. The actual reduction in real dollars is 3.8%. But nobody hears that, they hear 25% or 50% and fear the elimination of these organizations altogether.
...kind of like "first I voted for it, then I voted against it".
quote:
Aside from the economics, I realize your question is more on the issue of media bias. To that I would say I found Bill Moyers decidedly left wing in his views despite his occasional conservative guests.
I would generally agree that he is quite a bit to the left of the current definition of Conservative, but in past years he would have been considered a moderate.
(These days I think that even Nixon would be considered far too liberal to be listened to by the Republicans in power. After all, he instituted both the EPA and OSHA and set aside tons of land for the National Park system.
What a pinko. )
Anyway, while Moyers might be left-leaning, William F. Buckley is and always has been decidedly right-leaning.
So, how come it's only the Reps crying about "bias" in NPR when Buckley, and now Tucker Carlson, have been there all along?
quote:
But he is not on the air anymore and I haven’t seen much evidence of bias since his departure.
...except with Buckley and Carlson.
quote:
So no, I don’t believe there is a political bias as regards to PBS. NPR on the other hand may be a different story, I couldn’t say because I haven’t listened to it for quite some time.
Well, you know, maybe you should listen to NPR more. NPR listeners consistently show in surveys that they are better informed about political and international events that the people who watch mainstream TV news.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Monk, posted 06-25-2005 7:30 PM Monk has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 42 of 45 (219635)
06-25-2005 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Monk
06-25-2005 7:58 PM


Re: In perspective
quote:
Nobody wants to see PBS or NPR off the air.
I disagree.
Right wing conservatives have always tried to get rid of NPR and PBS.
If they didn't want NPR and PBS to go away, why would they accuse it of "liberal bias" so often and so loudly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Monk, posted 06-25-2005 7:58 PM Monk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 06-25-2005 10:44 PM nator has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 43 of 45 (219637)
06-25-2005 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by nator
06-25-2005 10:38 PM


As a way of measuring the Republican Party
here is a link to a 70's pdf copy of a campaign brochure.
'72 Brochure

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by nator, posted 06-25-2005 10:38 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by nator, posted 06-25-2005 10:56 PM jar has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 44 of 45 (219641)
06-25-2005 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jar
06-25-2005 10:44 PM


Re: As a way of measuring the Republican Party
That brochure would never fly today, and here's why...
1) Too many words and numbers.
2) Not ANY fear mongering.
3) No appeal to God.
I find it amazing how incredibly LIBERAL Nixon was by today's standards!
He sounds a lot like Clinton, actually.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 06-25-2005 10:44 PM jar has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 45 of 45 (219672)
06-26-2005 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Monk
06-25-2005 6:13 PM


Re: In perspective
I'm not sure why you did not answer my reply to you. I thought I raised some important questions. Some of them prevent reasserting the numbers you are using without further clarification.
PBS and NPR are currently non-profit organizations and they would retain that non-profit status after federal funding has been discontinued. The withdrawal of federal support will not distort their culture by altering their corporate mission towards the exclusive pursuit of profit.
Non-profit does not mean noncommercial, it has to do with how the income is distributed once received. You are correct in saying that it does not inherently distort the culture towards the exclusive pursuit of profit, as they cannot have it, but it might force some into a position (depending on level of support) to a for profit scheme.
That may be the natural trend if more and more corporate sponsorship is needed of PBS and perhaps at some point sponsors themselves request the stations switch or have their funding pulled.
The federal funds help such stations stay out of corporate control like that. It also keeps them somewhat sheltered from moral minority boycott extortion of programming.
I don’t believe a case has been made that the current commercial sponsors are having undue influence on programming to the detriment of the public good.
That is because they do not have as firm a control over the stations as they would under a purely commercial system. In this case it is a public station that allows corporations to let others know they are helping support that public system. In a private sector the corporations are essentially buying use of the station to have direct contact with the viewers.
This has the immediate effect of changing how commercial spots are run, what priority and nature they have. It has a secondary effect of changing the relationship between the corporation and the broadcaster. With less protection, there is more chance of predation by the corporation (extorting changes) or a reason for the broadcaster to be more self-policing.
State and local government support would remain.
This seems entirely inconsistent. If you argue against public funding at the national level, how does that not hold true for the state and local govt? Indeed how will you stop state and local officials from seeing a federal cut as a reason to cut their own funding?
Conversely, if you are arguing that state and local govt would or should continue support, what exactly is the problem with federal support?
If anything, there is a greater reason for federal support than local support given the nature of modern media. It could also be more efficient at distributing money.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Monk, posted 06-25-2005 6:13 PM Monk has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024