Televangelism and A La Carte Cable TV

The Boston Globe has the latest in a recent spate of editorials on the subject of a la carte cable TV, or the idea of paying for each channel we receive rather than a flat rate for an entire package of channels. Most of the editorials have been in favor, and this is an idea that conservative Christians seem to love. They want the chance to opt out of channels like MTV or LOGO since they broadcast content the fundamentalists think is inappropriate. Proponents know full well that many specialty channels will go under, since not enough people will choose to pay for them.What baffles me is who they think is going to want to pay to watch CBN or any of the other televangelist channels. I think we can take it as a given that most of the atheists here would not choose to pay for such channels, but I wanted to pose the question to our Christian neighbors here: if the cable and satelite providers go to a la carte pricing, which of the religious channels would you be willing to pay for?For my part, I'm beginning to think that, although the loss of the LOGO channel would be sad, I'm rather excited by the propect of Pat Robertson and his ilk being returned to the revival tent circut. How many Billy Sundays could survive without the support of a TV channel in today's environment? I don't know what the answer is, but I think the question is interesting.

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

Do those Christian channels even make any money from cable? I thought they were listener supported.

---

I dunno, I suppose it depends on whether they run commercials and I've never watched long enough to find out. But unlike secular cable channels, the religious channels are mostly non-stop telethons. There's always an 800 telephone number for you to call in your pledge and prayer request.So yeah, I guess they are listener (or viewer) supported, as you say. But the question is whether those listeners / viewers are willing to pay a monthly charge to continue watching.

jar writes me:

quote:

---

It's a very profitable business and if necessary, they will be more than happy to pay the cable systems for access.

---

But will they even have that option? As I understand it, the only change that will stand any political chance will be one whereby the cable customer gets local broadcast channels plus ONLY those channels he or she chooses and pays for. If cable companies have no choice but to charge for MTV and The Weather Channel, why should they be able to provide CBN for free? And if CBN can pay a fee to have their channel carried to all customers, why couldn't MTV do the same? Wouldn't we be right back where we started, perhaps with improved Time/Warner stock performance?If something of what you envision emerges, what's to stop Hugh Hefner from setting up a sex-toy shopping network and paying the cable systems to provide it to their customers for free?I have no idea how this is supposed to work. It seems to be yet another instance of the republican party trying to artificially control market forces. As usual, they seem to be totally unaware of how free enterprise is supposed to work. (To be honest, if this issue really does make it to Capitol Hill, I should think the democrats could use this logic to drive a wedge between traditional conservatives and religious fundamentalists. Some indications are that it's already driving a wedge between different factions of the fundamentalists themselves. How great is that?)Personally, I don't think anything's going to change, although we may end up with an option for a so-called "family package" tier of channels. But the number of newspaper editorials on this subject has definitely picked up lately and the a la carte idea seems to have a lot of support. The debate will heat up, no doubt, but like I said I don't really think anything much is going to change.For more information, check this google on 'cable choice' or this one for 'a la carte cable'.

riVeRraT writes me:

quote:

---

They are like PBS, and would be free, I am pretty sure.

---

Not under the a la carte system that's being proposed. The only channels that will be free will be your own local broadcast channels.

quote:

---

I do not like all the people I see there, but some are just fine.

---

Oh, sure, there are both good and bad people in almost every profession. One evangelist I've always had a degree of respect for was on TV just a few weeks ago in a Larry King interview: Billy Graham. I was reminded of why I respect him when Larry asked about gay marriage. Graham wouldn't take a position on it. He said that he thought the church should preach what it believes to those who choose to follow, but it should not be promoting a political position on this issue. He seems to really believe in separation of church and state. He even criticized his church and his own children over it. I was stunned at first, but I eventually remembered that he had long ago changed his thinking on church / state issues.

quote:

---

There is a formula on how to be crazy, and if you read the bible, you will unlock hidden brain cells from deep within, and you become crazy, lol.

---

Hehe. Well, I have read the bible. Is that where I went wrong? (just kidding, of course)

I think 80% might be a bit too high, but rat's point is taken. In 1995 I got very, very sick, so sick that I was unable to do almost anything. The worst aspect was an absolutely unbearable nausea. The doctor I had known and trusted all my life diagnosed me with bronchitis - of all things - for the simple reason that I coughed once while I was in his office. He shot me up with some sort of antibiotic and the next day I was jaundiced, and thus even sicker than I was before.I went to two more doctors during the following month. I was tested for every type of disease known to cause jaundice, including AIDS and various types of hepatitis. All the tests came back negative. I still don't know what illness I had, but like I said that was by far the sickest I've ever been in my life. When it was over I had missed five weeks of work.At the end of all that I had found a doctor I thought was competent, so the next time I got sick I went to him. That happened about a year later when I came down with a horrible rash that covered almost my entire body (only my face, hands and feet were spared). I went back to this doctor and he told me that I had developed some sort of allergy and prescribed some medicine. The rash got worse so I went back. He said the medicine hadn't had time to work, so I waited another week. The rash got worse still so I went to another doctor. This one diagnosed the problem as poison sumac and prescibed an ointment. Within about two days the rash was almost completely gone.I haven't been sick since - except with common colds and such - but the next time I do get sick I have no idea where I should go. I just don't trust doctors anymore.

rat writes schraf:

quote:

---

The other thing is, that besides you and Nosey Ned, no-one has ever dis-agreed with me.

---

Hehehe - nice one, slick!I really haven't found your 80% rule to be correct in anything, but like I said earlier my experience with doctors would put their profession somewhere in range of it. And it's not just me, I know other people who've had similar problems of having illnesses made worse by mis-diagnoses.In my case I suppose one of the problems might be that it's getting harder and harder for a doctor to practice general medicine. Medical advancements come so frequently and are so far-reaching in their scope nowadays that it's probably getting harder and harder for one man or woman to maintain a detailed knowledge of it all. Perhaps when we get sick we should go straight to someone who specializes in whatever part of our anatomy is showing symptoms. Maybe we ought to give up the idea of a family doctor, or general practitioner.