Can someone tell me why PBS no longer recieves government funding? - Page 4

Edan · May 17, 2003, 01:03

Quote:

Originally posted by cia
Please tell me then GePap, where it says in the Constitution where the government CAN fund the arts? Which amendment or article? Last time I checked one of the only things they were supposed to do was national defense.

Sigh...

Article 1, section 8.

cia · May 17, 2003, 01:07

Do you mean this Eden?
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Notice the wording for copyright and trademark?

GePap · May 17, 2003, 01:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
GePap: If PBS is so good, it should be able to draw a sizable audience, hence it should not need government subsidy.

Please! More peole watch American Idol than the sopranos: that does not make American idol better.

PBS has the job of trying to porvide educational, informative, and culturally edifying programming for free. Given the cotidian and base tastes that are the most common, this is inherently difficult, specaillu, since, as I have stated, it can;t just stick to one subject like the cable channels do but must remain broad. It is inherantly fighting against the market forces that create ever further sub-specialization (why do we need 700+ channels?). For example, whic crporations would sponsor Sesame street? ADM? Mercedes? No, toy makers, which would then push for programming more conducive to selling toys. And what about the news, of things like frontline? What if these guys want to investigate a companyu, but hey, they are a sponsor...too bad.... NO, not having to cater to the base tastes of the masses (which are not 'right' [again, porn videos sell more than Chrisian rock music..porn must be better for the public]).

Edan:
The only show I have seen on PBS being biased is NOW, but that is because Bill Moyers get so much editorial control. But as far as its national news sources, I find them much more informaive and less biased.

Edan · May 17, 2003, 01:16

Sigh. Funding of the arts comes out of the same place that funding of the air force comes from. By reading the constitution and trying to judge the framers intent in conjunction with modern realities.

TCO · May 17, 2003, 01:17

Let it die. It's a small step towards a freer system.

GePap · May 17, 2003, 01:20

The Congress has the right to make any laws it cares to make, unless they clash with some right given either states or individuals within the Constitution.

game over.

Nubclear · May 17, 2003, 01:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Edan
framers

Older persons.

Mt. < Banned >

Snowpersons.

Edan · May 17, 2003, 01:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Older persons.

Shouldn't that be "aged challeneged person"?

(You know, I think I would find "older person" more offensive that "senior citizen", myself...)

cia · May 17, 2003, 01:49

Mind pointing out GePap where in the Constitution where it says Congress can do whatever it wants?

LoneWolf · May 17, 2003, 02:07

So all things that are "good" should receive public funding? Chocolate is good. Sex is good. Beer is good.
Where is my money?

gsmoove23 · May 17, 2003, 02:27

Quote:

Originally posted by cia
Mind pointing out GePap where in the Constitution where it says Congress can do whatever it wants?

geez cia, bring it to the Supreme Court or shut the **** up. Oh, they would throw your case out, too bad.

Jac de Molay · May 17, 2003, 12:45

Quote:

Originally posted by LoneWolf
So all things that are "good" should receive public funding? Chocolate is good. Sex is good. Beer is good.
Where is my money?

Sounds good. I certainly don't want my public funding going to build cluster bomblets that little Iraq kids can play "kick the can" with. That's not good at all.

On the other hand, the educational programming is still second to none. The "world" perspective that PBS brings into the programming mix is still second to none. Nova is still the best science show on tv. No 24-hour commercial news channel covers issues with the thoroughness that NewsHour or Frontline does.

It's the best tv there is. The ratings are just as high, if not higher, in an increasingly saturated market. It's a cultural institution that deserves far more than it gets.

http://www.pbs.org/insidepbs/news/1Q2003.html

Edan · May 19, 2003, 10:24

It also seems like PBS (along with heavy metal) are effective to the military where an F22 isn't...

I love you, you love me, it's our secret weaponry....

More funding to PBS to help keep our military strong!

Arrian · May 19, 2003, 11:23

I'd like to thank the participants in this thread for reminding me to make my pledge to NPR. I keep meaning to give them money and I keep forgetting.

Gracias

-Arrian

DanS · May 19, 2003, 11:37

I don't know what the argument in this thread is about. PBS no longer receives much government funding, but does fine anyway. PBS still brings in about 4x the audience the likes of the History Channel or the Discovery Channel on similar programming. Everybody is making out well in this arrangement. If nobody donates to PBS then it will die, which would be fine too.

IIRC, the US is very poor when it comes to foreign movies (except the British ones), and most are dubbed anyway

The only dubbed movies that I have ever seen in the US are Japanese anime. Dubbing is not and has never been practiced in American cinemas, unlike in Europe and most other places (thank the gods Americans have more sense). You can find plenty of non-English speaking foreign films in major cities. Also, there's plenty offered on cable, which about 70% of American households have. Lastly, your local movie rental place has some and Netflix is pretty rich with the stuff.

Dis · May 27, 2003, 22:09

Is PBS like NPR? If so then

but I fail to see how having crappy British sitcoms is educational.

LoneWolf · June 6, 2003, 03:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Jac de Molay

Sounds good. I certainly don't want my public funding going to build cluster bomblets that little Iraq kids can play "kick the can" with. That's not good at all.

On the other hand, the educational programming is still second to none. The "world" perspective that PBS brings into the programming mix is still second to none. Nova is still the best science show on tv. No 24-hour commercial news channel covers issues with the thoroughness that NewsHour or Frontline does.

It's the best tv there is. The ratings are just as high, if not higher, in an increasingly saturated market. It's a cultural institution that deserves far more than it gets.

http://www.pbs.org/insidepbs/news/1Q2003.html

Well then, what the hell does it need a subsidy for?

Sikander · June 6, 2003, 06:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Who needs education when you have big bombs ?

Or for that matter big boobs.

Sikander · June 6, 2003, 06:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

PBS. TV stations that are not viable on the market deserve to sink.

They seem very viable to me. They make a product that I like, I send them money.

Sikander · June 6, 2003, 06:53

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
What do you pay? about 2 bucks a year.

given that we have one of the highest per student spending rates in the industrialized world (no, we have the highest) the problem with education is not needing more money.

I'm getting nervous, we seem to be agreeing more often these days.

Sikander · June 6, 2003, 07:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"We all know Imran and Shi love Reality TV. and sitcoms. God Bless the market!"

Ah GePap, always going into a condescending fury whenever he hears something he doesn't like. I don't watch TV, except for when I watch CNN in the Student Union waiting for class. I however, don't demand the government subsidize putting on something I would want to watch.

The government has been subsidising your entire education. If you're too pure to accept that money, then we should both head up to capitol hill and get me a refund.

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
We already do have educational programing on TV which can survive the Market, check out History Channel, Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, etc. The government does not need to subsidize educational TV.

I think the pittance that public television eats up is much better spent than the vast sums wasted on k-12 and university education. If the commercial stations were offering what PBS does, then I'd be happy without it. But they don't. I make money, and I am willing to pay for public television, and do. Your argument is just as easily applied to the public schools, which IMO offer far less bang for the buck. PBS should be well down on the list of things the government wastes money on.

Sikander · June 6, 2003, 07:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Public schools teach useful things, which are needed for people in getting work. If PBS suddenly started to show lectures on computer science or something, then I'd start backing it. But PBS doesn't really teach. Most of its programming is elitist entertainment like operas, etc. The 'childrens programming' is a very, very small portion of their schedule.

Ah, so you really don't know what you are talking about. My local PBS stations have college telecourses on Algebra, Statistics, Western Civilization etc. Plus the Children's programs, the Newshour, the political debate shows, the business shows, the science shows, the archeology shows, and the history shows. There is very little fat in that schedule.

But go ahead, I await the imminent Imranization of the thread. But black is white, you're disingenuous, and besides, they were offside! Tenacity is no substitute for a grasp of the facts.

Sikander · June 6, 2003, 07:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"Public schools teach useful things, which are needed for people in getting work. If PBS suddenly started to show lectures on computer science or something, then I'd start backing it. But PBS doesn't really teach. Most of its programming is elitist entertainment like operas, etc. The 'childrens programming' is a very, very small portion of their schedule."

No, I don't want to smell you're thumb. Judging by the quality of your arguments, Iknow exactly where it's been.

LoneWolf · June 21, 2003, 02:26

This is the most seductive, yet most lame, argument for a subsidy. If everyone in the US gave ME $.10, they would hardly notice. So what could be the objection?

Nubclear · June 21, 2003, 03:45

Thread revival!