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
I think I may be in the minority here, but I think PBS is not so bad. I personally feel very safe for example leaving it on in the morning for my son to watch cartoons. Everything is age appropriate and some of it is loosely educational and that is really hard to find on network stations and cable stations alike. I think that we as conservatives need to be careful not to be like liberals in the respect of not shutting down the opposition’s outlets. I don’t enjoy it when liberals do it to conservatives or vice versa. I do have a problem with the politics that end up on these stations, but they do have a whole host of other programming. Perhaps the political programming needs to be questioned, but the network as a whole should not be threatened.
I don’t think that you’re in the minority here in finding PBS “not so bad” for the reasons you describe. It’s evident that a lot of us probably watch more PBS programs than average, actually. The question is, why is it the government’s job to fund these programs?
There is a world of difference between shutting down speech and not subsidizing it.
If we really like the “good programing” on PBS as much as we say we do, we’ll be willing to pay for it ourselves, and not make others pay for it for us.
If PBS is defunded, a lot of the “good” content stands a decent shot at surviving in private (commercial or charitable) or municipal networks. Enough of us seem to want it, after all.
Good. My issue is that is where the GOP starts and claims some Pyrrhic victory in that the Democrats agree to the reduction of the increase in spending for the program in a horse trade for something huge like S-CHIP or CapNTrade.
Midget Faded Rattlesnake the only questions I have for you then is what is the difference between funding Public Television and funding a Public Library? A library is full of reading material that surely we would all find objectionable in its slant, so let’s stop funding it. Some groups may even argue that some of the novels have content that is unacceptable (hence the book burnings of the past). Everyone has access to a Barnes and Noble and Amazon, we can all pay for our books if we really want to read them why is it the governments responsibility to subsidize books. Besides if there is enough interest within the community to keep the library they should just raise the money. I am not suggesting that we shut down libraries; I just don’t feel we need to subsidize it.
Public funding for these two entities has outlived its usefulness. It’s time they were thrown into the deep end and allowed to either sink or swim.
All else being equal, a commercial enterprise is more responsive to a client’s needs and wishes than a nonprofit, a private nonprofit more responsive than a government nonprofit, and a more local government entity more responsive than a less local government entity, going from municipal to state to federal. You can call this principle Subsidiarity or “generalized Federalism” as you like.
Public libraries are traditionally funded and administered at the municipal level (though I believe now they receive some state and federal funds).The more local, the more responsive.
Notice I said:
I included the possibility of municipal funding (traditional for libraries), as I don’t suppose that it’s reasonable to expect these public institutions to die out altogether.
Municipal is a compromise we can probably live with.
Good. My issue is that is where the GOP starts and claims some Pyrrhic victory in that the Democrats agree to the reduction of the increase in spending for the program in a horse trade for something huge like S-CHIP or CapNTrade. ·Oct 22 at 4:21pm
Again we are in total agreement. This is the vision that haunts most conservatives. Come 2011 the GOP doesn’t govern as a conservative party but a statist-lite program.
Funding bad TV and bad radio is the last place money coming out of my bank account every quarter should go. I don’t even get a damned tote bag!