wrote:
Hello,
Like most Americans, I am fundamentally capitalist and pro-small government. That said, I admit that I have a hard time understanding people who are extreme in these areas. Why? Simply because capitalism, libertarianism, republicanism, or leftist and rightist points of view are just human philosophies. They are NEVER bullet-proof arguments. None, in their purest form, can answer all questions, solve all problems, or withstand the test of time. Reality is too complicated.
Take the roads you drive four hours a day on. They were built by tax dollars, not the capitalist corporations who would sell us cars to drive on the roads we paid for. Our radio, cable, telephone and power networks are similar in that regard. No corporation in existence had the resources to build that kind of infrastructure, so they looked to the people to help fund projects that, in the end, were intended to be mutually-beneficial.
When capitalism NEEDS socialism to reach that tipping point on the way to profitability, the public has a right to some "freebies" to go along with all the stuff they had to 1) pay to build and now 2) pay to use. A few of those freebies are public access television and radio stations, public radio, regulated energy, the right to publish an accessible page on the Internet, or in the past, PSA announcements to help improve public health.
When the public loses its stake in the monumental projects they helped to build, then they're giving corporations a free gift. That's not capitalism. Not TRUE capitalism anyway. I love that a corporation has the right to utilize the infrastructure that the people of American built in order to generate innovative products and services that benefit us all. What I don't agree with is that the public should be written off as mere consumers when they were really investors of sorts.
Deregulating gave Enron the power to exploit Californians for no other reason than profit... knowing full well that electricity is an inelastic demand. It also allowed television networks to remove public health and nutrition PSA's from children's programming... information that many children need more than ever these days.
These little perks were our gift as investors for funding the construction of some of the most impressive public works projects in the world.
My challenge to you as a fellow American is to ask why you need be so extreme in your views? Are capitalism and libertarianism flawless schools of thought? Are they impervius to change, revision, growth, or mutual give-and-take with other systems of thought?
Perhaps you may want to take a drive on a state highway out to some state park, hike some publicly-funded trails, and use your public-school education to consider the answer to this question. Bring some subsidized-food along with you, and maybe listen to a little public radio if all the advertising-driven channels give you a headache. You, your parents, and your grandparents have earned it... literally.
Like most Americans, I am fundamentally capitalist and pro-small government. That said, I admit that I have a hard time understanding people who are extreme in these areas. Why? Simply because capitalism, libertarianism, republicanism, or leftist and rightist points of view are just human philosophies. They are NEVER bullet-proof arguments. None, in their purest form, can answer all questions, solve all problems, or withstand the test of time. Reality is too complicated.
Take the roads you drive four hours a day on. They were built by tax dollars, not the capitalist corporations who would sell us cars to drive on the roads we paid for. Our radio, cable, telephone and power networks are similar in that regard. No corporation in existence had the resources to build that kind of infrastructure, so they looked to the people to help fund projects that, in the end, were intended to be mutually-beneficial.
When capitalism NEEDS socialism to reach that tipping point on the way to profitability, the public has a right to some "freebies" to go along with all the stuff they had to 1) pay to build and now 2) pay to use. A few of those freebies are public access television and radio stations, public radio, regulated energy, the right to publish an accessible page on the Internet, or in the past, PSA announcements to help improve public health.
When the public loses its stake in the monumental projects they helped to build, then they're giving corporations a free gift. That's not capitalism. Not TRUE capitalism anyway. I love that a corporation has the right to utilize the infrastructure that the people of American built in order to generate innovative products and services that benefit us all. What I don't agree with is that the public should be written off as mere consumers when they were really investors of sorts.
Deregulating gave Enron the power to exploit Californians for no other reason than profit... knowing full well that electricity is an inelastic demand. It also allowed television networks to remove public health and nutrition PSA's from children's programming... information that many children need more than ever these days.
These little perks were our gift as investors for funding the construction of some of the most impressive public works projects in the world.
My challenge to you as a fellow American is to ask why you need be so extreme in your views? Are capitalism and libertarianism flawless schools of thought? Are they impervius to change, revision, growth, or mutual give-and-take with other systems of thought?
Perhaps you may want to take a drive on a state highway out to some state park, hike some publicly-funded trails, and use your public-school education to consider the answer to this question. Bring some subsidized-food along with you, and maybe listen to a little public radio if all the advertising-driven channels give you a headache. You, your parents, and your grandparents have earned it... literally.
06 April 2008 19:35:19
wrote:
Tom, I somewhat agree with your opinion on taxpayer-funded radio, but allow me to muse for a second. Since we fund it, why not put it to work for us. A major change would have to be made within broadcasting, (commercial and public), and I'm sure that both sides would resist for different reasons. Here's my diabolical plan.
Since we are all tired with the sound bites, and attack commercials, lies about character and record; do away with ALL commercials for political candidates. Yes, no more commercials! Instead, public radio and television would be charged with airing debates between candidates in regions of the country. The pool of questions would come from registered voters, and screened by newspaper, radio, and TV news journalists to format a one or two hour show.
Each public broadcast station would have to carry these debates as payment for their access to a publicly funded license. The amount of time they must provide, and the level of coverage would be weighted on stations coverage. For example, a group of 10kw FM stations, (like WGET, WGLE, WGBE, WGDE, etc) would have to carry more hours of debates and interviews proportionally to that of a 3 kw "stand alone" public station. Overall, I think that several hours per month during the final 9 months of a presidential election would be sufficient. Further, they would also include in that mix any Senate, or Congressional, and local civic leader races. After all, this is "public" broadcasting.
But honestly, Tom, this would never see the light of day. Public broadcasters want the money, but they don't really want to do more than broadcast symphonies and beg for funding. And, can you imagine what the commercial boys would do if they lost between $50,000 to $200,000 in annual revenues for a hotly contested race? I have a better chance of winning the Mega Millions than my idea coming to life.
Now, do you want to get me started on commercial radio and consolidation?
Since we are all tired with the sound bites, and attack commercials, lies about character and record; do away with ALL commercials for political candidates. Yes, no more commercials! Instead, public radio and television would be charged with airing debates between candidates in regions of the country. The pool of questions would come from registered voters, and screened by newspaper, radio, and TV news journalists to format a one or two hour show.
Each public broadcast station would have to carry these debates as payment for their access to a publicly funded license. The amount of time they must provide, and the level of coverage would be weighted on stations coverage. For example, a group of 10kw FM stations, (like WGET, WGLE, WGBE, WGDE, etc) would have to carry more hours of debates and interviews proportionally to that of a 3 kw "stand alone" public station. Overall, I think that several hours per month during the final 9 months of a presidential election would be sufficient. Further, they would also include in that mix any Senate, or Congressional, and local civic leader races. After all, this is "public" broadcasting.
But honestly, Tom, this would never see the light of day. Public broadcasters want the money, but they don't really want to do more than broadcast symphonies and beg for funding. And, can you imagine what the commercial boys would do if they lost between $50,000 to $200,000 in annual revenues for a hotly contested race? I have a better chance of winning the Mega Millions than my idea coming to life.
Now, do you want to get me started on commercial radio and consolidation?
09 April 2008 22:01:45
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.lucente.org/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
[COLUMN] End Tax-Funded Broadcasting
I have a vice. Well, OK, I have many vices, but I only have one vice of which I am ashamed. In fact, I only engage in this vice when I am alone.
The vice?
I listen to public radio. After all, where else can you listen to a report titled "Gender inequity in ‘Whoville'"? Or, how about a report on a transgender radio talk-show host in India?
Great stuff.
I also enjoy public radio shows from NPR's fellow providers American Public Media and Public Radio International.
While I am most fond of NPR's news programs, such as "All Things Considered," "Morning Edition" and "Day to Day," I also enjoy the entertainment programs as well. From all the good-looking men, strong women and above-average children of Lake Wobegon, Minn., on "A Prairie Home Companion" and those jocular Italian auto mechanics on "Car Talk" to the fun and games on "Wait, Wait ... Don't Tell Me!" and "Whad'Ya Know?," public radio has some great programming.
Now, in my defense, I spend about four hours a day in my car and the police don't much like it when you watch movies on your laptop computer while driving, so there is not much to do other than listen to the radio.
Here's the problem, though. I am philosophically opposed to public broadcasting. I am a true capitalist and a libertarian so I find it reprehensible that the government takes money from the people to fund such things as public radio. There is not a single article in the U.S. Constitution that permits such an illegal transfer of wealth.
However, because my tax dollars fund public radio, I find no dichotomy in my opposition to public radio and the fact that I listen to it.
Now, I mention this because it is that time of year when public radio stations across the country are engaging in their semiannual fundraising campaign. There is nothing I hate more than these campaigns. More airtime is wasted with radio announcers begging for money and less time is given to the actual programming.
In fact, a few years ago, one radio announcer had the audacity to accuse everyone who was listening without donating of theft. It was quite offensive, given that everyone in the country who pays taxes funds public radio even if they don't listen. Who is the thief here?
It is not that I have a problem with a radio station making money. Indeed, quite the opposite. My problem rests in the fact that public radio is already forcibly funded by money the government takes from the people.
The rub is public radio programming does have value. I would write a check for the programming today if the government would end its funding of public broadcasting and let these great shows compete for listeners in the marketplace.
There really is no need in today's multimedia world for the government to subsidize broadcasting. If a broadcast program is good enough, it does not need government funding.
Additionally, because it is, really, state-run media and the journalists are paid, in part, by the government, NPR's news coverage is always suspect.
What I find ironic is that funding of public broadcasting is a cause carried mostly by liberals. Yet, those same liberals often complain loudly (and ignorantly) about tax cuts for the rich. What do they think government funding of public broadcasting is?
It is a tax cut for the rich.
NPR told advertisers several years ago that its listeners were 66 percent wealthier than the average American and 150 percent more likely to be professionals or managers.
These people can afford to pay for such programming if they really want it. Let's face it, tax-funded broadcasting, as well as other tax-funded cultural activities such as art and music, is a transfer of wealth from the middle class, which is taxed to pay for the news and entertainment of the upper middle class.
Clearly, public broadcasting, while never necessary, is certainly anachronistic in today's wired world where Americans suffer from media overload.
When Congress ends such illegal and immoral funding, I will send in my donation. However, I doubt I will be writing that check anytime soon.
category | Column
author | Lucente