Ciao!

I disagree with you. I love NPR and to a lesser extent, PBS. I do not agree that market checks and balances should apply to things that involve entertainment because in the entertainment business, mostly everybody appeals to the lowest common denominator. Essentially, NPR and PBS would become TLC and the Discovery channel. While these channels are really much better than MTV and the E! network, they are still basically the Home Decorating and the Chopper network (respectively). Both of these channels started out with admirable intentions to educate and inform but after Trading Spaces and American Chopper became hits, each saturated their schedules with what sells the most advertising. That is what really happens with the market mechanics in entertainment.

Another point would be that maybe we should cut off WIDR as well. Even though WIDR does get a majority of it's funding from listeners, it does rely on the university for rent, utilites, and some grant money. If they were to try to make it without this, they'd have to bend to market mechanics and start playing more popular music and selling advertising to make more money. Since it would be a commercial radio station, FCC licences would be more strict and each DJ would go under a much more stringent review policy. As a result, certain niche shows such as Jaakan's movie show and Bay's Plan-B would be replaced by DJ 2000's playlist that was formulated to get the most listens.

Finally is the point that not everyone knows what a podcast is nor do they have the technology know-how to do it. Radio is everywhere and can be spread cheaply. Although it isn't fair that government money gets used to fund very left-leaning news, it is a balance to the right-leaning talk shows that my co-workers love to listen to everyday.

I agree w/ the problems of market mechanics. People often don't have the same aesthetic tastes we wish they did. If only I could make everyone do what I want them to do ... But I still don't think that necessarily means the government should step in. Because at least the market works on the basis of what people want; are we so sure government would make programming "the people" want?

Your point on WIDR is a good one, but I don't think it's the same. WIDR gets its money from the university, which isn't quite the same. Not all universities have college stations, and those that do can cancel them at any time, I suppose. And at least universities are in the business of education.

I think NPR could easily survive on its own, as could PBS.

But the real problem is that the reason to save PBS or NPR or whatever usually comes down to *some people* wanting to save *their* networks/shows. After all, not everyone gets a radio show.

What really bothers me? Is that I mostly get the feeling that NPR & PBS are principally demanded by rich people, who want poor people to pay for it. Because I'm sure some of the celebrities who come out in support of NPR could keep the network alive just by writing a check. So why demand that *my* money go to it? I mean, I can't even remember the last time I watched PBS. I think it was sometime in the 80s.

While I seem to view in a negative light everything the government is involved to as far as making decisions for me, I ask myself this question when it comes to public television.

Who is going to pay for the kinds of programs being produced by public television?

Over here in Germany I am having a dylema. There is what they call the GEZ fee. This is a fee that everyone has to pay if they have a radio or a television "standing" on their homes or cars. You don't pay, you are a criminal.

I refuse to pay this deamed fee. It's just to support government television. But, and this is a big but, when I watch television, I end up watching public television most often because they have interesting programs which are not necessarily blockbusters bringing gazillion $$$ to the network. I am starting to re-evalue my stance, ejem!

Now, I ask, who in the private sector will want to produce boring programs about history, animals, documentaries, not to mention children programs, etc. All those boring programs that can only be found in public networks.

Is PBS really ready to go private and raise revenue by itself? I doubt it. Not enought ratings. Not enough companies interested in placing adds (which would take 1/2 hour, just to get throug the adds).

I am not an advocate for government television, but what is the "real" alternative? Who will pay for PBS and the kind of programing they produce?

Great topic Miguel.

I disagree completely.
First, your premise stated that the government should not be involved in communications, arts, or entertainment business. Unfortunately, that is quite impossible. Take network television for example. The broadcast spectrum for TV is owned the government, licensed by the government to the networks, overall programming is regulated by the FCC, the content of commercials is regulated by various institutions such as the FDA/FTC/SEC, and so on.

Second, what is the problem with government-funded art? Just because the government funds art does not make that art better than non-government funded art. Art is art. True, there will always be those people who don't like their tax dollars being spent on art they view as obscene--but that's one of the compromises you make to live in a society. Personally, I think the amount of tax dollars being spent on military weapons is much more obsene than a Virgin Mary covered in schiess. Governments have always been involved in the promotion of art--take Poet Laurates for example. Pablo Neruda, Robert Hass, etc might not have been as important in the field of poetry if governments had not thought their work was great.

Third, PBS and NPR have certainly not been out-paced by cable or the internet. In fact, they represent one of the few places where long discussions (similar to blogging) can take place without interruption and where ideas can be fully explained instead of sound-byted. In fact, as a blogger I would think you would welcome the conversations that take place on NPR or PBS. Take the News Hour on PBS--network news may have a 30 minute slot, but only 15-20 minutes is actual programming while the rest is filled with Viagra commericals. So coverage of important issues is reduced to no more than 2-3 minutes per item. In comparison the News Hour spends nearly 40-50 minutes of solid coverage of several issues, bringing both sides to the table (which is much more than anyone can say for Fox). And as many media critics have observed just because there is 400 cable channels doesn't mean the quality has improved--in fact I would argue it's significantly down because the value of each channel has gone down in direct proportion to the number of channels. Networks now make all kinds of crap shows simply because they know there's so many media outlets looking to fill space on the dial.

Fourth, enough with this lefty news crapola. NPR and PBS are not lefty leaning organizations. Show some evidence on this. I can accuse Fox of being right-leaning because the evidence proves it--not to mention Fox itself admits to its bias because it balances Fox's viewers perception of CNN's left tilt.

Fifth, yes the government does have a responsibilty to provide some access to the news for most people. Your point about rural Americans is interesting. In many rural markets, there simply isn't the market for any media let alone a news program. Most of the people usually are lumped together with whatever large media market is nearby. So your argument about the market providing doesn't fly. It's similar to building phone lines to rural communities at the beginning of the phone age--it wasn't profitable for the companies to do so, so the government subsidized the growth of that market because everyone felt it was important to have the communication.

Sixth, target audience. If you haven't watched PBS since the 1980s how do know they target educated upper class people? The same with NPR, one of the most popular shows for years has been CarTalk--hardly an upper crust show.

Seventh, subsidies. The annual budget of NPR and PBS is around $400 million. Network television gets $18 billion a year in subsidies through their FREE use of the broadcast spectrum. Now who's subsidized?

Eighth, NPR and PBS do get 40% of their funding directly from their audience. A structure that is unlike any other media organization out there--you're wrong when you say other radio/tv stations are funded by their listeners/watchers. They are funded by shareholders, advertisers, other media companies etc. They are not funded by their listeners at all.

I do agree with one point. These silly funding battles should really end. The best solution would be a federal tax put on every cable bill to cover NPR/PBS funding and then the issue is done. Those people that have a problem with it can simply not subscribe to cable.

Finally, in a time of war with a president who has lied the very last thing responsible people should do is call for the elimination of one of the few media outlets that has not been coerced or duped by the White House. The same White House, mind you, that didn't have a problem subsidizing the likes of Armstrong Williams.

Where was your complaint about government-funded news then?

One more thing, if you so opposed to spending government money on the news what is your position on Al Hurra--the US Government funded ($60 million+) satelite news service for the Middle East? It seems to me that Al Hurra benefits even fewer Americans than PBS/NPR--mainly just US soldiers. Why not let the market dictate what people in the Middle East will watch instead of funding a US government TV station over there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhurra

@Patrick:

Oh, I agree w/ you more than you might think. Yes, I think US government sponsored Mid-East news service is lame. On the one hand, I'm OK w/ propaganda party-line news services, if they're clearly government-line propaganda services (like VOA during the Cold War). But using the government to fill in the nitch is dumb. There's evidence to suggest that as much as some people dislike Al Jazeera (and the other new satellite networks in the region), they're doing more for democracy than against.

As for your other points:

1) I don't think the FCC should exist to do anything more than ensure that no two networks are using the same frequency in the same area. That's it. And the frequency use should be on a first-come-first-serve basis. Television and radio content should be regulated by the audience. You don't like something, turn the dial or turn it off.

2) I think some government recognized art is good, since it is part of living in a modern society. And I've no problem w/ "obscene" art (beyond my personal aesthetic dislike for much of it). But I think government supported arts is a perk, not a right or a necessity. And, I agree on tax dollars and the military. I think it'd be great if our tax forms came w/ a list of check marks that we can saw were we want our money to go (or not go). I think it's wrong to make pacifists' tax dollars go towards military defense, just as it would to take tax dollars (as in most of Europe) to the government-recognized church.

3) I agree that PBS & NPR have more shows devoted to better discussion (though often to a specific slant, but I'm OK w/ that, just not government-sponsored). But I think that discussion could easily take place on other channels, if there was enough demand. Mostly, I think we're at a technology crossroads; so PBS & NPR are on the way to obsoletion, but not there yet. But we need to look to the future, not to conserve some old 20th century legacies. Why not a government program to make easier access to independent videoblogging? Use that on cable broadband, as my above suggestion.

4) I think the outcry of enough right-wing types that PBS & NPR is left-wing is good enough evidence. It's all about perception. People who lean left think FOX is a right wing machine; people who lean right think the same of CNN. I'm OK w/ both of them (and others) because it makes a richer spectrum. I just don't think any media is free of bias, so I don't want a government sponsored to pretend it is. I'm OK w/ a government funded "government line media" or whatever, but not supposed journalistic objectivity. Surely no one thinks the Army's "Stars & Stripes" is objective journalism? Here, I prefer C-SPAN, which is just the kind of thing the government should do.

5) I think we agree on the rural problem. I think the government should connect every household in America to cable w/in five years. 100% coverage, giving every family some 50 channels of various kinds. I'd be willing to pay higher taxes (than the ones for NPR & PBS) for this.

6) OK, good point on my claim of bias. I only mention what's a perceived bias. Most people I grew up w/ or talk about this to believe PBS is for nerdy intellectual types. But that could be wrong. Either way, seems PBS needs some PR. Maybe if it was forced to compete in the open media market, it would have a marketing arm aimed at growing its audience?

7) Again, I agree w/ that problem of subsidies. The US government shouldn't subsidize any network. They should all pay as they go, and see above on my views of what the FCC should do (which is virtually nothing).

8) Mainstream media gets, one could argue, 100% of its funding form listeners. It's called advertising. People watch a network, and buy the products in the ads. If not, shows get cancelled and go off the air. It's not as direct as the funding drive, but it's still audience-driven.

Finally, I've always been opposed to public funding of PBS & NPR. I was just now responding to a slew of emails I've been getting (sort of a public "don't email me, I'm not on your side").

Hmmm...

Well, Miguel...I used to agree with you. My attitude came especially from the fact that I was an artist and I felt that NEA et al paid the way for some artists and not others (such as myself). Out of resentment, I felt that these other artist should be forced to compete in a free market like I was. And in many respects, I still feel this way.

However...

I have been made aware in the last few years about the importance of public media. I will point out only a few observations for you to ponder here.

1) Schools today are flooded with 'free' merchandise (such as book covers) from corporations. These items, when used by schools, imprint brand loyalty on students. This is basically government sanctioned advertising by omission. I think that you will agree that this is unAmerican in a very Atlas Shruggedy kind of way.

2) Sesame Street, though perfectly capable of surviving without government oversight, would become a very different program. First I point you to the obvious: "Today's program has been brought to you by the letters Q, H, and the number 4." That would immediately be changed. Furthermore, let us look back on some of the important strides that Sesame Street made that were socially unpopular--decisions that corporate sponsors would have vetoed: Jerry Garcia (Hippy drug user guest), Luther Vandross (black entertainer), and Anthony Daniels (gay robot, C-3PO) just to name a few. The show would not be the same under corporate supervision.

2) Mr. Rogers was influential in the education and socialization of many of us growing up. His show taught us how to value other people, other careers. Alas, he is dead now--so many of your points carry extra weight. However, the spirit of his conception is still alive and well over at PBS.

3) Although there are channels that offer purely children's programming today (Disney, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon), they are corporately motivated. The almighty dollar supercedes altruism in all cases. Yu-Gi-Oh and Aquateen Hungerforce sell better than reading and mathematics. The same could be said for PBS's adult programming: History Channel has become the WWII channel because that is where the demand is, whereas PBS still goes out and makes productions about a variety of historically important topics--they have the freedom to do so.

4) Finally, I suggest you rent Frontier House. Think about whether that program could have been made privately. I suggest that only a group like PBS could do something like it.

Okay, off to class now.

Love,
Micah

Don't get me wrong, I also loved Sesame Street & Mister Roger's Neighborhood growing up. I think those things were useful. But I think you understimate A) the power of the market to provide these things to parents and B) the ability of PBS to compete as a cable network.

As it is, PBS gets much of its sponsorship from corporate ads. So that won't change much, just that they'd start running the same kind of ads other chanels do. And while corporate sponsorshop of things (like Chanel One) might be bothersome, it does provide free access to many needed things. Chanel One put cable TV in thousands of classrooms in the country; all they require is watching a 20 minute news program (the only news many students get) w/ 5 minutes of advertising.

But private chanels do have some great educational material on the air, which you'd be more familiar w/ if you had kids (or nieces). Nick Jr. plays Dora the Explorer & Blue's Clues, both highly educational. There was a demand for Sesame Street type shows, and they dove into that market. Dora the Explorer, btw, is the first I know of where the main character is Hispanic (the show is bilingual). Nick Jr. has lots of other shows for infants on up. Check their schedule sometime (they currently have 13 different shows airing). Most of the kids I know watch primarily Nick Jr. shows (w/ Dora the Explorer the most popular).

Granted, Disney TV, ABC Kids, and Fox Kids tend to run more entertainment shows, rather than educational ones. In part, though, those chanels seem more aimed at the pre-teen & adolescent markets. But it seems that, other than Sesame Street, Nick Jr. is carrying the load when it comes to children's educational programming.

As for the rest, you're right, PBS can do some great programming. But perhaps the money would be better spent supporting the making of content, which can then be shoped around to other networks (TLC, History, National Geographic, etc) rather than aired on an underwatched network. I mainly just don't think public spending for actual TV stations is cost effective. Fifty years ago there was virtually no children's educational programming. Now, PBS kids is just doing what Nick Jr. is.

I might point out, though, that all of the channels you mentioned are cable stations. Many children do not have any access to cable--especially those in poorer families. If the conversion is made, then the rich get even more education while the poor get even less.

Love,
Micah

But, Micah, I've been suggesting that the government provide FREE cable to EVERYONE.

no.... if the government was paying for "free" cable for everyone, there go my favorite shows, like Entourage. ;)

I don't see why govt-subsidized cable access to basic networks & educational programming would mean any shows would be cancelled. I'm NOT suggesting that government be able to monitor or otherwise censor/approve/etc programing on networks (I even think the FCC should be severely limited to only making sure no two stations use the same frequency). My abiding position on censorship or "offensive" material on TV/radio is this: don't like it? turn the dial.