"Separation" dilemma

[editec]

Me too



True




I do.

Why have we given the government the right to decide what is good etnertainment or bad entertainment?

Suppose, for example that PBS deided that its role was to put on NASCAR 24/7 and the government helped support that.

Would you STILL support the existence and government's role in PBS?

Forget the whole political angle and just ask yourself if you think it's the GOVERNMENT'S job to decide what is good art? v what is bad art?

That's an awful lot of supposing, even for me. While I see your point, it's inconceivable that there is a marketable audience. Hell, I can't even get 24/7 baseball without paying for it myself. Without that audience, there would be no broadcasting system to support.

It's not supposing at all, Allie.

Programming itself requires some POV and every POV is biased.

Understand I like PBS, but it is not unreasonable to object to the government getting involved in the arts and entertainment.

Of course, PBS doesn't really get as much money from the government as most people think..

Last information I got suggested that the FEDs fund about 15% of their overall budget.

The other 85% comes, mostly, from various foundations who fund programs that they like.

Damned little of it (my guess..I cannot find hard numbers) actually comes from the viewing public.

 

[DamnYankee]

Why have we given the government the right to decide what is good etnertainment or bad entertainment?

Suppose, for example that PBS deided that its role was to put on NASCAR 24/7 and the government helped support that.

Would you STILL support the existence and government's role in PBS?

Forget the whole political angle and just ask yourself if you think it's the GOVERNMENT'S job to decide what is good art? v what is bad art?

That's an awful lot of supposing, even for me. While I see your point, it's inconceivable that there is a marketable audience. Hell, I can't even get 24/7 baseball without paying for it myself. Without that audience, there would be no broadcasting system to support.

It's not supposing at all, Allbiz.

Programming itself requires some POV and every POV is biased.

Understand I like PBS, but it is not unreasonable to object to the government getting involved in the arts and entertainment.

Of course, PBS doesn't really get as much money from the government as most people think..

Last information I got suggested that the FEDs fund about 15% of their overall budget.

The other 85% comes, mostly, from various foundations who fund programs that they like.

Damned little of it (my guess..I cannot find hard numbers) actually comes from the viewing public.

But you just previously agreed with me (before) that they didn't get enough support from private and public donations. How is it that now you're telling me that 85% is from those sources and only 15% from federal funding?

According to this, from last May, that would be the case.

Parade Shills for PBS to Get $400 Million in Federal Funding

You'll also note, at the end, it says:

"The Media Research Center has long shown that PBS and NPR have a history of displaying a liberal tilt funded by taxpayer dollars."

Not exactly the focus of this thread when it started, is it? But look where it's taken us....