The mediocrity police

[Shelby]

While I fundamentally disagree with governmental sponsorship of entertainment; publicly funded KUT out of Austin, Tx. is a wonderful magical experience.
​

 

[tallguypns]

I work for both the local NPR station and the local PBS station. How many people that gripe about the possibility of government funding being pulled actually send in their own pledges to keep these stations alive?

 

[B_Stronzo]

Stronzo - You missed the point of my words all together. NPR's listening audience is approx 22 million people. As with all free radio, anyone is welcome to tune in. But the demographics tell the tale that rich, white, middle-aged people are the audience that is its lifeblood. If they want to keep it alive with their own money (or ad $$$ if they did "go public" so to speak) I have no problem with that. Still, why do we need to in-part subsidize the listening habits of rich, white, middle-aged people? I'm not knocking anyone, just asking a question. I guess I'm riding the little short bus in my thinking that NPR could become even stronger if cut loose.

By what you write here I don't think I missed it at all. We need to 'in-part subsidize' it simply because it raises the standard if for no other reason. Perhaps NPR and your cut loose theory has some credence but not PBS.

With respect to my own demographic (well-to-do white people) I think our standard has been demonstrated to be high and inclusive. I don't understand why you single us out particularly.

When, by example, one watches the plethora of shows like King of Queens and Lost and Survivor as an indication of what network television has to offer (let alone Sundays full of non-stop sports broadcasting) it's pretty obvious to me that white, monied, heterosexual males are in charge of the programming there in the worst possible way. Comparing the two fora I think you'll see my point.

And it's not the point of the money - $115 or so million in a budget of $2.5 Trillion isn't a huge piece of the pie. As a society, we can't rail against run-away spending if everything is off-limits to cut.

Of course not and I'd never suggest we should. But this is the difference between this American society being culturally literate and informed and not being. I say it's tax dollars well spent.

 

[B_Stronzo]

I work for both the local NPR station and the local PBS station. How many people that gripe about the possibility of government funding being pulled actually send in their own pledges to keep these stations alive?

My boyfriend and I for over 7 years.

Hundreds of billions of dollars and how many thousands of lives squandered for the Boy King's distraction in Iraq and the Republicans want us to be upset about miniscule subsidies for public broadcasting.

That nails it nicely. Done.

 

[Shelby]

I miss the gong show. Probably never would'a made it on high brow tv.

Favorite act? "Gotta nickel" - where two ho's sat on the edge of the stage and worked out on some long phallic popsicles.

After much laughter, J.P. Morgan gonged 'em.
​

 

[B_Stronzo]

I miss the gong show. Probably never would'a made it on high brow tv.​

What is 'high brow' tv?

After much laughter, J.P. Morgan gonged 'em.

J.P. Morgan was one skanky cunt. Ewwwwwwwwwww.

 

[Shelby]

High brow tv is/are the shows (that I mostly like btw) that elitists feel are superior to the general fare aimed at the masses.

Eeww?

Your opinion.
​

 

[JustAsking]

I guess that forms the core of why I'd still say that they can make it w/o gov't help. Because they are so different as compared to their competition, I would think that the rest of network "journalism" has so differentiated itself that they've helped an outlet like NPR create a niche that only it populates. The conservative in me sees what more they could become if they did "go public", not what they might lose if they changed.

Yes, I see what you mean. But don't you think it would have happened already? If there is that much money in NPR style journalism through a commercial outlet, wouldn't someone be doing that already? There are already very high quality roundtable shows on the major networks but its obvious the execs don't see the potential for them being on any other time than Sunday morning.

 

[JustAsking]

Kind of like the war in Iraq.

:biggrin1:

 

[B_Stronzo]

High brow tv is/are the shows (that I mostly like btw) that elitists feel are superior to the general fare aimed at the masses.​

I don't think it's 'elitist'. I think,for instance The Forsyte Saga is infinitely preferable to The Simple Life. If that's 'elitist'. Elitist is good.

Eeww?

Your opinion.

​

Yes Shelby. My opinion. I feel like I need a rabies shot every time I see a rerun of that show and her reactions to each performance. She's NASTEE. I swear she's a drag queen (or was).

 

[headbang8]

I work for both the local NPR station and the local PBS station. How many people that gripe about the possibility of government funding being pulled actually send in their own pledges to keep these stations alive?

I do. Big time.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

I work for both the local NPR station and the local PBS station. How many people that gripe about the possibility of government funding being pulled actually send in their own pledges to keep these stations alive?

Regular OPB member here. Its worth supporting. I also contribute to jazz and blues programming coming out of the local community college. :smile:

 

[brainzz_n_dong]

Yes, I see what you mean. But don't you think it would have happened already? If there is that much money in NPR style journalism through a commercial outlet, wouldn't someone be doing that already? There are already very high quality roundtable shows on the major networks but its obvious the execs don't see the potential for them being on any other time than Sunday morning.

I don't know.

As with any capitalistic venture the only final answer is in the marketplace. They do have a large audience, one I cannot see simply vanishing if they were to become self-supporting.

(By the way, when did replies in this chat room start defaulting to a sort of dark grey? I don't remember that from the past.)

Stronzo, it is just illogical to me for government to be involved in subsidizing radio and tv in 2006, especially for the wealthiest segment of our population. That you like PBS-style programming doesn't upset me in the least and I certainly have nothing against white + wealthy + middle-aged. I'm already white, hopefully laying the foundation to become wealthy, but can wait a while for the middle-aged thing.

Though, I would disagree, as for a while "Lost" wasn't a bad show. You can only milk so much out of it, though. My gf thinks the sun rises and sets on the emaciated butts of those contestants on "Survivor". Ugh...

 

[JustAsking]

Stronzo, it is just illogical to me for government to be involved in subsidizing radio and tv in 2006, especially for the wealthiest segment of our population.

But its ok to give them lots of tax breaks, right?

Actually, every fiber of my being would cry out in anguish if we removed gov't subsidy for public broadcasting. But I find I cannot disagree with your logic. The fibers win, though. I would still oppose withdrawing the subsidy.

 

[madame_zora]

But its ok to give them lots of tax breaks, right?

Actually, every fiber of my being would cry out in anguish if we removed gov't subsidy for public broadcasting. But I find I cannot disagree with your logic. The fibers win, though. I would still oppose withdrawing the subsidy.

His logic would be impeccable, if "conservative" still meant what it's supposed to mean. So much good, sound thinking just no longer applies in the face of the America in which we currently find ourselves. While I can wish that public broadcasting could survive on private contributions alone, the more practical side of me suspects that it would be underfunded, and go the way of the tumbleweed. We are too much in a world where the majority rules, and that makes a very bad case for a project that so few enjoy, when compared to the networks.

"Elitist"? Oh HELL yeah- PBS is primarily for people who can read. As for being aimed at middle class white guys- what isn't? But remember, middle class white guys also voted to free slaves, and outlaw (in theory) racial discrimination. Those were the ones who could read, and had a social conscience- not Joe six-pack. They also were not the majority. The problem with our current situation is that it's now okay to be a dumbass fucking illiterate redneck. These people used to know their place- under a bridge- now they just come right out and suck up the air that could be used by someone with the ability to think beyond seven second sound bytes.

 

[B_Stronzo]

"Elitist"? Oh HELL yeah- PBS is primarily for people who can read. As for being aimed at middle class white guys- what isn't? But remember, middle class white guys also voted to free slaves, and outlaw (in theory) racial discrimination. Those were the ones who could read, and had a social conscience- not Joe six-pack. They also were not the majority. The problem with our current situation is that it's now okay to be a dumbass fucking illiterate redneck. These people used to know their place- under a bridge- now they just come right out and suck up the air that could be used by someone with the ability to think beyond seven second sound bytes.

Splendid! My good woman when you crystalize thought it's the stuff of real inspiration.

"Elitist"? Oh HELL yeah- PBS is primarily for people who can read.

That's precisely what the 'illerate rednecks' cannot abide. To them excellence is a full day of non-stop sports watching on Sundays. You others cannot actually believe that some govt. funding for the arts and public broadcasting is a bad thing can you??

If you do just then just go on justifying the taking of innocent life in Iraq while we hippies watch programs like this one:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/


Hell Reagan's White House never mentioned it. I guess we get to have a few (comparatively) dollars hurled at an informed public if I and others like me have no real say in the blanket spending going on to justify the "Boy King's" thirst for human carnage.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I guess we get to have a few (comparatively) dollars hurled at an informed public if I and others like me have no real say in the blanket spending going on to justify the "Boy King's" thirst for human carnage.

But Stronzo, you just don't get it. Our involvement in Eye-Rack is a matter of nash-nul suh-kur-tea! Bein president is hard wurk! Hard wurk! (Pardon my quote from his "debate...")
Boy George is a good chris-chen 'merkin, doing his part for nash-nul suh-kur-tea! Hard wurk! Killin them there Eye-rakkys makes the world safe for enron.... uh, I mean, uh, democracy. You got some nerve thinkin you have a right to intelligent airwaves when we got a emergency of nashnul suhkurtea on our hands!

 

[B_Stronzo]

DC?

Have I told you lately that I love you?:biggrin1:

 

[JustAsking]

His logic would be impeccable, if "conservative" still meant what it's supposed to mean.

Yes, actually I think b-n-d was arguing a well meaning old fashioned conservative viewpoint. That is what my logic was responding to.

So much good, sound thinking just no longer applies in the face of the America in which we currently find ourselves. While I can wish that public broadcasting could survive on private contributions alone, the more practical side of me suspects that it would be underfunded, and go the way of the tumbleweed. We are too much in a world where the majority rules, and that makes a very bad case for a project that so few enjoy, when compared to the networks.

It must have been the late hour that he seduced me with the notion that unfettered free market capitalism is completely compatible with quality journalism. Being an engineer, I am sometimes too process oriented and can get seduced by the ruthless efficiency of something like the free market system.

While I understand his argument, I cannot support the fact that the American system of "what have you done for your investors this quarter, because it is all about the stock price today" capitalism would be a good steward of in-depth quality journalism.

While free market capitalism makes a kind of ruthless darwinian sense, and it does produce some remarkable things such as fast computers, what it doesn't do is promote quality for its own sake, unless quality becomes a market imperative over other more lucrative properties. In other words, if a broadcast network is a public company, they are compelled to go where the money is in order to keep their growth rate high in support of their stock price. If that means running Bill O'Reilly instead of Meet The Press, then that is the responsible thing to do for the stockholders.

To wit: Meet The Press and shows like that are on Sunday morning when noone is watching anyway and Bill O'Reilly is on every night during news primetime. This makes absolutely perfect sense for a public company, and doing the opposite would be considered irresponsible management. So yeah, NPR would do much better as a publicly traded commercial entity, but it would resemble Fox more than anything else.

So to revisit my moment of weakness, I agree that it doesn't make sense for the government to be subsidizing a sector of the media in this day and age, if you restrict your thinking to only the tenets of free market capitalism. However, if you expand your thinking to include things like national interest and the role of the press in a democracy, you get a different answer. In depth journalism is in the national interest to a higher degree than is Bill O'Reilly's show or even the traditional network news.

Subsidizing NPR is an investment in an informed electorate, just like tax dollars going to literacy programs is an investment in an informed electorate.

If anyone here has seen the Frontline special on AIDs knows what I mean. It would be financially irresponsible for NBC to produce that special and run it on prime time in place of The Apprentice or some other highly popular show.

However, it would be equally irresponsible for the gov't not to be subsidizing some media outlet where such a special like that would be produced and aired.

 

[Shelby]

But how can it be considered independent? Are you saying there's no possible way a story on a publicly funded news program could be slanted in favor of candidates deemed more likely fund it i.e., keep the reporter employed?

The fact that one may support said candidates hardly makes the reporting independent and/or better informed.
​