In which many of my friends will disagree with my political views...
Regarding funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting...
So, there's been a vote to lower funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports stuff like NPR and PBS. This has, of course, sparked off a huge flaming BBQ Pit debate on the SDMB (which, for all the claims that "lefties" control everything, seems to have a pretty even distribution of shrill and irrational individuals on both sides of the aisle). I don't post to anything important, anymore; no one cares what I have to say, and I don't care if they acknowledge my presence. But that particular debate moved me to eloquence (or, at least, what might almost pass for eloquence if you're 16 and have had a few too many drinks).
I support public broadcasting, by which I mean that I both contribute to and support federal funding of said broadcasting. The general feeling I'm getting from many of the more libertarian members of the board, as well as from many conservatives who are most certainly *not* libertarians, is that one should not have one's tax dollars allocated to something which they do not support.
You know, I agree with the general principle. I really do. However, that kind of thing just isn't going to fucking work.
I don't support the war in Iraq. Never have, never will. I don't support war except in those gravest of circumstances when we are moved by the strength of our conscience and humanity to act in order to prevent suffering, or as an act of self-defense (and I accept the latter only grudgingly). However, I highly doubt that the majority of those posters would argue that the military should be privately funded.
I don't believe that there should be career politicians. I doubt that many conservatives (who are not also libertarians) would argue that politicians should not be paid by the government for their services. Sometimes, my tax dollars are going to go to policies that I do not agree with. It's a fact of life in this country, and, while it's one I lament, it's one that I'm willing to accept.
That being said, I personally feel that supporting public broadcasting is very important. Why? Because democracy sucks.
No, really; straight democracy, where the merest whim is determined solely by strength of numbers? Horrid. Wretched. Fortunately, we don't live in a democracy; we live in a democratic republic, a fact that decades of high school civics teachers have tried (unsuccessfully) to drill into the heads of high school seniors. Our system is in part designed to protect minority rights at the expense of the majority's desires; this is undemocratic in nature. In short, our government is not a pure democracy.
The economic market, however, is an entirely different matter. It is far more democratic; individuals vote with money, with buzz, with word of mouth and boycotts. A word from a conservative organization can kill a small company in the right situation. One politically incorrect comment can doom a show to cancellation in the right atmosphere. Products that do not have sufficient demand--sufficient support from the masses--are discontinued or revised. In the marketplace, the tyranny of the masses is complete, ruthless, and terrible.
By turning on the television, one can observe the inherent tyranny of the masses. Creative or unique programming that does not have mass appeal is cancelled in favor of "safer" shows (Firefly, anyone?). Despite all the bitching on both sides about CNN being too liberal, or Fox News being too conservative, the news is 21 flavors of bland, covering the same tired stories about celebrities, politicians, and other powerful and moneyed individuals. While networks have very different looks and images, the overall taste is the same across all 200 channels--bland. 200 flavors of bland, broadcast in high definition and delivered straight to the consumer at a not-at-all reasonable fee.
Additionally, certain markets get destroyed. Science and educational programs are discontinued in favor of the eight-millionth special on asteriods crashing into the earth and/or "edutainment" (light on the "edu," heavy on the "tainment"). And why? Because that's what private corporations are willing to pay for; whatever will bring in the most advertising revenue.
Public broadcasting is a breed apart; it's not yoked to the burden of advertising, not mastered and whipped by private companies whose primary concern is their bottom line. Like independent media, it provides a unique product. Unlike other independent media sources, however, it has nationwide distribution in a medium other than the internet. You can't pick up the Rock River Times in Boise, or Tampa, or Boston. As a result, public broadcasting can tackle subjects that are more controversial in an in-depth manner.
This isn't to say that PBS, NPR and their ilk are without bias--like everything else in world, it will often not be entirely impartial. But to declare that government funding can only go to that which does not take sides is to fund yet another iteration of blandness. I like opinions, whether they match mine or not, because they make me *think*! They're entertaining.
And so many of those who are joining in the hue and cry against this funding cut just don't understand the bloody point! They cry "Sesame Street!" and "Arthur!" and "Antiques Road Show!" in a desperate attempt to save funding. Those shows aren't the ones that need the funding. They could find a home on almost any other network. We don't need public funding for that; we need public funding in order to allow people to express opinions in an effective and widespread manner apart from the support of large corporations, and apart from the support of the rest of the world!
When people are principled, when people will defend the right of others to spew opinions with which they disagree on the most fundamental levels, when people can understand that debate is the foundation of a healthy society. . .that's when we can cut funding for public broadcasting. That's when people will truly understand the underpinnings of our government. As long as people point their finger and cry, "that's biased!", we will need governmental support. Because, if we don't, a more terrible tyranny than we could have ever imagined will overtake this nation. I, for one, don't want to see that day.
Sorry. It just gets to me.
--Rachel
So, there's been a vote to lower funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports stuff like NPR and PBS. This has, of course, sparked off a huge flaming BBQ Pit debate on the SDMB (which, for all the claims that "lefties" control everything, seems to have a pretty even distribution of shrill and irrational individuals on both sides of the aisle). I don't post to anything important, anymore; no one cares what I have to say, and I don't care if they acknowledge my presence. But that particular debate moved me to eloquence (or, at least, what might almost pass for eloquence if you're 16 and have had a few too many drinks).
I support public broadcasting, by which I mean that I both contribute to and support federal funding of said broadcasting. The general feeling I'm getting from many of the more libertarian members of the board, as well as from many conservatives who are most certainly *not* libertarians, is that one should not have one's tax dollars allocated to something which they do not support.
You know, I agree with the general principle. I really do. However, that kind of thing just isn't going to fucking work.
I don't support the war in Iraq. Never have, never will. I don't support war except in those gravest of circumstances when we are moved by the strength of our conscience and humanity to act in order to prevent suffering, or as an act of self-defense (and I accept the latter only grudgingly). However, I highly doubt that the majority of those posters would argue that the military should be privately funded.
I don't believe that there should be career politicians. I doubt that many conservatives (who are not also libertarians) would argue that politicians should not be paid by the government for their services. Sometimes, my tax dollars are going to go to policies that I do not agree with. It's a fact of life in this country, and, while it's one I lament, it's one that I'm willing to accept.
That being said, I personally feel that supporting public broadcasting is very important. Why? Because democracy sucks.
No, really; straight democracy, where the merest whim is determined solely by strength of numbers? Horrid. Wretched. Fortunately, we don't live in a democracy; we live in a democratic republic, a fact that decades of high school civics teachers have tried (unsuccessfully) to drill into the heads of high school seniors. Our system is in part designed to protect minority rights at the expense of the majority's desires; this is undemocratic in nature. In short, our government is not a pure democracy.
The economic market, however, is an entirely different matter. It is far more democratic; individuals vote with money, with buzz, with word of mouth and boycotts. A word from a conservative organization can kill a small company in the right situation. One politically incorrect comment can doom a show to cancellation in the right atmosphere. Products that do not have sufficient demand--sufficient support from the masses--are discontinued or revised. In the marketplace, the tyranny of the masses is complete, ruthless, and terrible.
By turning on the television, one can observe the inherent tyranny of the masses. Creative or unique programming that does not have mass appeal is cancelled in favor of "safer" shows (Firefly, anyone?). Despite all the bitching on both sides about CNN being too liberal, or Fox News being too conservative, the news is 21 flavors of bland, covering the same tired stories about celebrities, politicians, and other powerful and moneyed individuals. While networks have very different looks and images, the overall taste is the same across all 200 channels--bland. 200 flavors of bland, broadcast in high definition and delivered straight to the consumer at a not-at-all reasonable fee.
Additionally, certain markets get destroyed. Science and educational programs are discontinued in favor of the eight-millionth special on asteriods crashing into the earth and/or "edutainment" (light on the "edu," heavy on the "tainment"). And why? Because that's what private corporations are willing to pay for; whatever will bring in the most advertising revenue.
Public broadcasting is a breed apart; it's not yoked to the burden of advertising, not mastered and whipped by private companies whose primary concern is their bottom line. Like independent media, it provides a unique product. Unlike other independent media sources, however, it has nationwide distribution in a medium other than the internet. You can't pick up the Rock River Times in Boise, or Tampa, or Boston. As a result, public broadcasting can tackle subjects that are more controversial in an in-depth manner.
This isn't to say that PBS, NPR and their ilk are without bias--like everything else in world, it will often not be entirely impartial. But to declare that government funding can only go to that which does not take sides is to fund yet another iteration of blandness. I like opinions, whether they match mine or not, because they make me *think*! They're entertaining.
And so many of those who are joining in the hue and cry against this funding cut just don't understand the bloody point! They cry "Sesame Street!" and "Arthur!" and "Antiques Road Show!" in a desperate attempt to save funding. Those shows aren't the ones that need the funding. They could find a home on almost any other network. We don't need public funding for that; we need public funding in order to allow people to express opinions in an effective and widespread manner apart from the support of large corporations, and apart from the support of the rest of the world!
When people are principled, when people will defend the right of others to spew opinions with which they disagree on the most fundamental levels, when people can understand that debate is the foundation of a healthy society. . .that's when we can cut funding for public broadcasting. That's when people will truly understand the underpinnings of our government. As long as people point their finger and cry, "that's biased!", we will need governmental support. Because, if we don't, a more terrible tyranny than we could have ever imagined will overtake this nation. I, for one, don't want to see that day.
Sorry. It just gets to me.
--Rachel