Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Do we really need Public Broadcasting?
Putting National Public Radio’s firing of Juan Williams aside, the more important question is why does NPR (or PBS, for that matter) continue to exist in this era of hundreds of cable and satellite outlets and thousands of radio stations and hundreds of thousands of Internet choices?
It can’t be for balance. Just ask any liberal whether he thinks there aren’t enough conservative voices on the air, and he’ll probably laugh at you. And you may have heard that conservatives believe there’s a glut of liberal voices. It also can’t be for variety. What with The History Channel, The Smithsonian Channel, Logo, The Food Network, et al, what voids do these publicly-funded networks fill? And it certainly can’t be for tolerance of opposing views; just ask Juan Williams.
I think both NPR and PBS provide some really good programming (where else can I get my fix of doo-wop music and Fawlty Towers reruns?), but as deficits explode, it might be a good time to ask whether the need for so-called public broadcasting has passed.
Published in General
etoiledunord
OK now I’m ever more confused than usual. What sort of public funding did you have in mind?
From the personal journal of edtoildunord:
Well, this is the day the scales fell from my eyes. I’ve always considered myself a conservative.
And I found this great online community at Ricochet and I thought we were all on the same page and then there was this thread about NPR and I just happened to mildly suggest that perhaps there was some virtue in taxpayers contributing just a tiny, tiny amount so indigent seniors could have access to programming more uplifting than Judge Judy.
Bam! They were all over me with these hateful comments about how crippled seniors ought to crawl to the library or content themselves with reading Pennysaver.
I realize now….I’m not one of them! This is a real Road to Damascus moment.
I’m growing a beard….
etoiledunord
etoiledunord
It seems to me that Etoile means the private philanthropy he mentioned: “corporate funding and membership drives”.
Possibly… maybe… municipal funding, too? But not state or national funding. Does this make sense?
Well, it didn’t help him that he is every conservative’s favorite liberal. The guy is just a bit too intellectually-honest and humble to grate on our nerves. He’s not your standard Lefty polemicist, he actually considers issues, rather than spouting talking points. To the Left, that’s dangerous apostasy.
Patronage and private charity work fine for public education, scientific research and the arts.
And, even for the poorest people, friends are free.
But, little Joey and Sally in their Smoky Mountains shack will never develop a taste for staticy opera and bad history without the cultural leadership of the mighty Federal Government. Sure, grandpa has wrasslin and roller derby on all day, but when he passes out it is Placido time!!!
And, even for the poorest people, friends are free. ·Oct 21 at 10:27am
Speak for yourself, buster.
I have to pay for my friends.
But, little Joey and Sally in their Smoky Mountains shack will never develop a taste for staticy opera and bad history without the cultural leadership of the mighty Federal Government. Sure, grandpa has wrasslin and roller derby on all day, but when he passes out it is Placido time!!!
Courtesy of Mollie via Twitter:
A: Yes, I heard that. This has become a political issue. My God, I’m shocked!
Even if she had really ended Williams’ contract for admirable reasons… shocked? Really? Even her fellow liberals should be able to recognize that she’s lying.
NPR? Well I think, though we have to divorce the “news” appendage from the entertainment appendage. Car Talk, Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me and Prairie Home Companion do have at leas some entertainment value. They could CERTAINLY exist on satellite radio, for sure.
For me, though if we’re going to talk about ending grants to the CPB and whatnot, then we could also talk about the entire granting process for higher education and arts (NSF, NEA, ect/)
I mean for many academics, you spend most of the time writing grant proposals to get enough grant money to float your next grant proposal. Oh, and it better be something that’s appealing to the busybodies that want to use your findings to empower their statist agenda. Ok, maybe that’s a bit too tin foil hat-ish
I think they just trotted that statistic out again in response to this latest controversy. So, on the one hand, government funding is insignificant, but on the other hand, we’re barbarians for threatening to take it away.
Possibly they’re complaining that their rent is too damn high.
Headline from HuffPo & NYTimes the day NPR/PBS funding is cut: “Republicans v. Big Bird”
I mean for many academics, you spend most of the time writing grant proposals to get enough grant money to float your next grant proposal.
This is so true that it makes my teeth hurt. As for bias, while there of course is political bias of some kind as there always is in academia, the bias in NEH grants is toward senior, already published scholars. It is very unusual for junior scholars to get one, right off the bat. This is one of the 1,000+ reasons why the most self-regarding progressive institutions in America are also the most hierarchical and reactionary.
MPR (Minnesota Public Radio) used to be one of my accounts back in my software selling days. Let me tell you, those guys were loaded! About 5 years ago they built a $54 Million expansion of their offices in downtown St Paul.
Time to wean them off the government teat and let them stand on their own…
What the problem is, is not necessarily public funding of a broadcast channel. What is the problem is the utter lack of creativity and will to entertain of PBS.
The BBC produces the best TV show on the planet (besides Wheel): Top Gear.
And no one would accuse Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May of being a leftist.
The BBC produces the best TV show on the planet (besides Wheel): Top Gear.
And no one would accuse Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May of being a leftist.
The BBC does produce many wonderful shows. (It also produces the BBC World News Service, which, whatever its merits, I don’t think anyone could argue is not leftist.)
I think Trace already addressed that the fact that public broadcasting produces some good stuff is not evidence that the same good stuff wouldn’t be produced if there were no public broadcasting. Public services crowd out private services: there is no need to reduplicate entertainment that someone else has already done.
I believe the Beeb’s wonderfully entertaining shows are a blessed exception rather than the rule of what to expect from government-funded entertainment. Our PBS is probably more representative.
Surely you, Michael, so proudly paleo-paleo, aren’t hinting that federal funding of entertainment is legitimate, so long as it is the right kind of entertainment?
What more could NPR have done to energize the Right to get out and vote? Either they’re thick or they’re up to something. I tend to prefer the former but don’t rule out the latter.
I believe the Beeb’s wonderfully entertaining shows are a blessed exception rather than the rule of what to expect from government-funded entertainment. Our PBS is probably more representative.
Surely you, Michael, so proudly paleo-paleo, aren’t hinting that federal funding of entertainment is legitimate, so long as it is the right kind of entertainment? ·Oct 21 at 3:40pm
Edited on Oct 21 at 03:41 pm
There would be a stronger case for federal funding of a single television channel or radio channel is if the programming was aimed at entertaining as well as being educational rather than just being “educational.”
My issue with the Science, TLC, Discovery Channels, etc. is that the truly educational shows get marginalized for sensationalist programming. There’s hardly any ratings for actually learning how the world works. That’s a shame.
I’m reading the comments and
That cracked Me up.
“….where else can I get my fix of doo-wop music and Fawlty Towers reruns?”
Uhm, CDs and DVDs? Using One’s Own money?
I’ve long believed that at least half the appeal of NPR is its tone. Even when it spews leftist nonsense, the reporting sounds even-handed and thoughtful. Very smooth. Everyone on it is just so darn sincere. No one shouts. Everybody’s calm and reasonable. (I quit listening years ago, despite the fact that I loved the very sound of NPR.)
About the only place I’ve found a similarly reasonable charming sort of tone amongst conservative broadcasters is – the Ricochet podcasts. Funny, self-deprecating and very,very smart. There’s a lesson in this for center-right-conservative broadcasters, I think. We don’t all have to sound like Rush, or Hannity, or O’Reilly. Don’t get me wrong – I think these guys are smart and right on the issues almost all the time. But I don’t listen regularly because I don’t care for the tone of their broadcasts.
So – who’s up for replacing NPR with NRR (National Ricochet Radio)? I say Rob Long gets the morning drive-time slot. Who gets the evening drive?
There’s hardly any ratings for actually learning how the world works. That’s a shame. ·Oct 21 at 5:08pm
But Michael, what’s the need of turning on the television in the first place if you can just Look Around You?
My issue with the Science, TLC, Discovery Channels, etc. is that the truly educational shows get marginalized for sensationalist programming.
I grew up immersed in science documentaries and magazines, but I’ve lost interest as they’ve become increasingly politicized. It’s not sensationalist shows like The Crocodile Hunter or River Monsters that bug me. It’s that nearly every show is a lecture on endangered species, habitat destruction, “climate disruption” or evil corporations. Otherwise, the shows are in praise of Darwinism, cloning, stem cells or some other progressive cause célebré.
The BBC produces the best TV show on the planet (besides Wheel): Top Gear.
And no one would accuse Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May of being a leftist. ·Oct 21 at 3:17pm
No one is a bigger fan of Top Gear than me. But the bottomline is if the private market cannot fund it then it is not worth producing. It is wrong for you or me or any other Top Gear fan to reach into the pocket of our fellow citizens and take their money to fund the programming we want. As for the BBC and their quality, the license fee each Brit must pay, the salaries paid to top presenters and the Beeb’s budget in general has been a hot topic in Britain. From what I’ve read, the idea that the Brits are getting their monies worth is debatable.
As to the point I just made about the BBC and Top Gear, this applies to PBS, NPR, Ken Burn’s documentaries or any arts out there in general. It is wrong for us to reach into the pockets of our citizens to pay for things we want whether our tastes or intentions are good or not. The arts and entertainment should ONLY be funded by private citizens who have the desire to do so. This applies to all other government programs as well. We need to stop thinking we know better or best and forcibly take from Peter and give to Paul.
Michael Tee
My issue with the Science, TLC, Discovery Channels, etc. is that the truly educational shows get marginalized for sensationalist programming.
So TRUE! I used to be an avid National Geographic fan. My dad has a collection of every single one of the issues. I contemplated building my own collection. Then I noticed more and more of the politicization and skewed science. I no longer subscribe and have since given away my old copies. No thank you.
NPR deserved defunding in 1980. The rationale hasn’t improved with age. I’m pondering a question heard this week, “if government services went away would you really notice?” NPR is one that for me would not matter.
As someone who grew up watching (hours and hours and hours) of PBS, I’d hate to see Public Broadcasting go. However, the fundmental question is not one of programming quality or where else this programming can be accessed. The question is: should it be a duty of government to subsidize TV and radio?
My answer would be no.
Tim, I guess my point was made tongue in cheek a bit. I find most American public programming abysmal when it is not abhorrent. In other words, if we’re going to have it, and we are, it might as well be good.
NPR and PBS are relatively small fish. When we start curtailing those budgets, we better have won on Medicare, Social Security, Education, and wasteful Defense spending.
Michael Tee: Then we are certainly in agreement. However, I will say that despite their relatively puny federal outlays, conservatives should be using NPR and PBS as perfect examples of the Friedmanesque argument I made about the do-gooders constantly sticking their hands in our pockets to fund their latest good intention.