|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are we now facing legislated ignorance? (Re: U.S. Public Broadcasting funding) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
Yes, great. I just got an email on this from moveon.org.
However: "Despite this incredible progress, the House Republicans did manage to cut over $100 million, including funding for children's programming like "Sesame Street." " So I guess the whole fight is not over and goes to the Senate now. (editted to change a critical oversight). This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-24-2005 12:39 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Similarly, do you believe that all scientific research should be funded privately or should there be government grants to fund it? 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[quote]And we can cut the Federal deficit while we are at it.
[quote]
You know what would do a better job of cutting the federal deficit?
Rolling back the tax rate for the wealthy to where it was before Reagan. Or, we could just follow Clinton's financial and economic policies more closely to get rid of the deficit, like he did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Exactly. You can listen to NPR and get a story or an interview that is a full five minutes long. Plenty of time to really talk about the issues and examine things. Commercial radio and TV news never takes this long to cover any story. In fact, in the rare event that I wash commercial news, stories which are rarely more than a few sountbites strung together, I end up getting frustrated and indignantly asking the TV or the radio the incredibly obvious yet unasked questions. It's almost nothing but superficial soundbites.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
You can listen to NPR and get a story or an interview that is a full five minutes long. Perhaps that is the problem. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
LOL!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6423 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
Similarly, do you believe that all scientific research should be funded privately or should there be government grants to fund it? Off the topic of the thread, which is PBS.
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? A business that provides products or services that nobody needs is a candidate for bankruptcy. Your question seems to presuppose that businesses have a primary purpose other than providing services or products that are needed. 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. They have argued that commercial entertainment programs have much larger market share. But this is completely irrelevant to the question. I do not assert that a privatized PBS would have equal market share to CBS. I assert that a privatized PBS (perhaps as a cable/satellite channel) would have equal market share to a public PBS. It would serve a niche market, not a mass market, but would be viable doing so. 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 !). 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. 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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. They have argued that commercial entertainment programs have much larger market share. But this is completely irrelevant to the question. By this I take it you are going to completely dodge my posts to you? I mean this doesn't even come close to my direct replies to your posts. Shame on you.
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 !). No it is not. It is similar to those who argue that a military service, or an educational system, or an emergency response service is best handled through an established public service that would run as a primary service in addition to any private sector businesses that could handle the same services. I have already pointed out, and you have not denied, that everyone beyond utopian anarchists and libertarians recognize certain services, ones we need and so will have to pay for anyway, are best served through public funding rather than private sector purchase which will inherently divert money away from the service needed to maintain business needs, as well as allowing personal issues (biases) to creep into the service. The argument is the same for an adequate informational broadcast source as it is for a printed copy of the Annual Budget to all who request it, or a Library of Congress, or the emergency broadcast service, or the military, or the etc etc etc... Please deal with the actual argument presented to you, instead of creating strawmen.
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. Ownership is actually moving back towards that 1969 version... you understand that don't you? And increase in channels does not mean an increase in diversity of people, or viewpoints. I have already explained this to you, and you have ignored it to make the above statement. Again, shame on you. You can do much better than this. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3924 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
I assert that a privatized PBS (perhaps as a cable/satellite channel) would have equal market share to a public PBS. It would serve a niche market, not a mass market, but would be viable doing so. I see no valid reason why the Public Broadcasting System and National Public Radio should continue to receive government funding. The original justification for it was that PBS and NPR offered artistic and cultural programming not available elsewhere. This is no longer the case in a 500 channel broadcast universe. 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. Since government funding of both PBS and NPR is only 12% to 15% of their operating budgets, I don’t see much of a change in either market share or type of programming if the funding were removed. They are already essentially operating as a private non-profit organization and are allowed to have commercial sponsors and so are already exposed to corporate influence. Does this mean that removing government funding would require commercials? Well, this has also been in place at PBS for a long time. PBS doesn’t call them commercial spots, rather they are "underwriters’ messages" but they serve the same purpose. Arguments about profit motives determining program selection and the corruption of programming due to corporate influence fail because the situation is already in place. 85% to 88% of PBS and NPR funding is outside of government support. The average private company can withstand a 15% drop in annual revenues and continue to survive. They would have to adjust and find other sources to replace that lost revenue, just as any other private organization would have to do. The transition would not be as dramatic as many believe and could be phased in over time. I’ve seen articles that imply bankruptcy and forced removal from the airwaves if funding were removed. It isn’t so. I enjoy the programming at both PBS and NPR. I believe they are unique and beneficial. I also believe that those organizations have matured and can stand on their own without government taxpayer support. This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 06-25-2005 10:11 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Entomologista Inactive Member |
reply deleted - wrong login.
This message has been edited by Entomologista, 06-25-2005 11:09 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Actually, I'd say that NPR and PBS are one of the better examples of the taxpayer actually receiving something of value for their tax dollars and would like to see increased tax funding of both. We need to look at what value we get from our tax dollars, and there I think the US would likely rank near the bottom of developed countries. Since the great disaster called the Reagan Administration, we seem to have been redirecting tax support of everything worthwhile to Corporate Wellfare. Reagan and those following on have destroyed the US education system (after he decimated the California system for practice which was arguably the best in the nation) and that will be reflected in the future standing and competitiveness of the US. They have destroyed what was probably the best health care system in the world. They have gutted what was the leading evironmental effort in the world.
To say we are facing legislated ignorance is not an understatement. In fact, the goal seems to be the establishment of ubiquitous ignorance. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3924 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
So according to you, and I’m paraphrasing here:
Tax support for corporate welfare is rampant. The US education is destroyed The California education is decimated The US health care system is destroyed The environment has been gutted. The Reagan Administration was a disaster Any more doom and gloom you care to throw out? You forgot the disasters of the Bush I and Bush II presidencies? Surely you consider both of them to be disasters. The left considers everything to be a disaster when Reps are in power.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The left considers everything to be a disaster when Reps are in power. First, just to set the record straight, I am a registered Republican. The first political campaign I worked in was for Eisenhower's relection. In that campaign I was still but a child just entering that pre-teen period and was the campaign manager for the Eisenhower camp in a mock election and Electoral College Convention. I have been active in every presidential election since then. I was a Young Republican and the Adult Advisor for a chapter of TAR. I have been a poll worker, campaign transportation coordinator, worked phone banks and distributed flyers. I am a conservative and would say more of a Goldwater Republican than a Rockerfeller Republican. That out of the way, yes, I think you summerized my beliefs (which I'll be happy to support in some other thread). Yes I left out the disastrous reigns of Bush the 1st. & 2nd.. Ronald Reagan did more to legislate and perpetuate ignorance than any other figure in modern history. And The Bushes have continued the rape and pillage of American society. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3924 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Jar writes: Ronald Reagan did more to legislate and perpetuate ignorance than any other figure in modern history. And The Bushes have continued the rape and pillage of American society. Ok, I'm beginning to see your point on ubiquitous ignorance. Of course, from your point of view, there are the elite few who know the "truth".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
First of all, nice post. Okay now for the rest...
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. I don't see this as a fully satisfying answer. It does not remove the possibility of future collapse of options, due to condensed control of media or perhaps economic reasons (eventually the broadcast "bubble" might burst). Ironically Sesame Street (to use the favorite PBS show example) could at first hit the private sector to much fanfare only to get axed from several different directions related solely to commercial enterprise. Suppose a station goes under yet decides to hold onto the rights for the highest bidder, or keep them entirely. It also does not argue that any of the competing channels out there supply the same format and consistency, or could in a purely commercial market.
Since government funding of both PBS and NPR is only 12% to 15% of their operating budgets, I don’t see much of a change in either market share or type of programming if the funding were removed. They are already essentially operating as a private non-profit organization and are allowed to have commercial sponsors and so are already exposed to corporate influence. This is an interesting statistic and certainly poses the base of an argument that they really just don't need funding as they really aren't using it anyway. But this looks like a very vague statistic to me, perhaps a bit too easy. Who is "they" (clearly there are various stations and so does the stat vary outside 12-15 for some?), and what is "operating budget" (Is it possible that while total budget is small, parts of the budget are near total 85+% underwritten and need that portion to keep content or format from being effected by commercial sponsors?)? The thing which I don't get is that the ones arguing against the funding are often heard saying that it is being used to back liberal propaganda, and this is a way to get what they couldn't get otherwise. That seems inconsistent with what both you and Paisano put forward regarding the economics of the situation. I guess I'd like to see a more concise criticism of if this is truly leftwing people getting money to put messages on air they couldn't get otherwise, or if this is really successful stations which have outgrown (due to their popularity) the need to have supplemental funds. It seems like critics can't have it both ways. And then in connection with this, if the stations don't really need it, why exactly are the station managers asking for the funding? What do they argue it is used for? About ten years ago when Reps tried to pull the same thing, the answers in the hearings by those who run public networks did not make it sound so little to them. Are they just being greedy?
The average private company can withstand a 15% drop in annual revenues and continue to survive. They would have to adjust and find other sources to replace that lost revenue, just as any other private organization would have to do. I agree that 15% would not necessarily destroy a business, and it could even lead to increases in efficiency. But beyond dollars and cents, doesn't it also thrust these broadcasters and each show into the public sector to be "eaten up" in the usual day to day workings of commerce? In effect is one not simply raising the shield on a public service such that it can then be picked apart by corporations? Isn't it more than the theoretical question of "would it make enough money to get by"?
I also believe that those organizations have matured and can stand on their own without government taxpayer support. What if in the future it cannot. Businesses go bust. That is the nature of business. Is it not worthwhile to have a source of consistent useful news and educational info as a public service, that has the added benefit of little to no commercial advertising getting in the way? I think there is a reason to have at least one protected "public" source of information. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024