🚀 go-pugleaf

ab> Alex Bunker

ab> I do not particularly like commercial television because it is not a free
ab> form of expression because it is beholden to the views of the advertisers.

  If you want someone else to pay the bills, don't be surprised when they use
  that influence to control what they're paying for. The situation is similar
  to that of artists who live off of NEA money; they are shocked and outraged
  when taxpayers demand accountability.

ab> We see this in comparing PBS to A&E. The quality and intellectual depth
ab> and vartiety of perspectives available on PBS is FAR greater than pathetic
ab> ultraconservative A&E (the standup comedy-documentaries about war from a
ab> hawkish perspective channel.)

  (What about the Discovery channel?)

  Since when does airing a documentary about WWII (for example) qualify A&E as
  hawkish? Wars do happen, and people write books and make films about them.
  A&E has also aired some fine drama, for example, the British production of
  "Oranges Aren't the Only Fruit", about a young woman's experiences with her
  own sexuality (lesbian, no less!) and her domineering religious mother.

ab> I want a TRULY free form of expression.

  TANSTAAFL. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

ab> What is commercially viable is not free. What about programming that is
ab> anti-capitalist? Or exposes great wrongs in the consumerist status quo?

  60 Minutes, 20/20, and the whole slew of newsmagazines do such features on
  a semi-regular basis. Simply because a network decides to spend something
  less than 24 hours/day on topics other than what you want does not mean that
  it's programming as a whole is worthless.

ab> We do not get to see these shows because the advertisers hold the networks
ab> in blackmail.

  How do you reconcile this view with the view presented by Dan Quayle and
  others of similar persuasion that the bulk of TV programs proselytize the
  current liberal/left viewpoint? Both of you can't be right.

ab> Even PBS is underfunded so it is conservatised by its shows being sponsor-
ab> ed by right wing think tanks.

  Such as?

ab> TVO and BBC are better examples. As friends of mine from other countries
ab> have said countless times "its funny there is 20 channels here and only
ab> 3 back home but there is always something interesting to watch but here
ab> it is just mindless garbage."

  European patronization, I'd say. I've heard similar complaints from other
  Europeans who say that the bulk of European TV is also crap.

ab> But I hear you say "If the government controls it it can be made into a
ab> government propaganda machine." It has been shown that this is not neces-
ab> sarily the case, with the BBC in particular. The government and viewers
ab> can sponsor a network and then give it free reign. I probably would not
ab> believe it myself if I had not really seen it working.

  I wonder what Irish, Scottish, and Welsh nationalists have to say about the
  quality of the BBC. 

  Why are so ready to accept the idea that the government should control more
  of our lives than it already does? Also, why should the US government act
  like a European government? Would you entrust US television to the current
  US government? If not, what changes would have to be made to the US govern-
  ment to make it more acceptable to you? I already know your answer, as we
  have discussed this before.

ab> Also interrupting with commercials has been shown to have a very bad
ab> psychological effect lowering our attention span. I just want to allow
ab> commercial only on the hour for five minutes.

  You sure are sounding more and more like a dictator. The New World of Alex
  sounds like a really lousy place to live.


--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF