The mediocrity police

[JustAsking]

By the way, why is gov't subsidy for NPR a bigger problem than the $Bs/year that go to for tobacco subsidy? Where are those free market guys when we really need them?

Yes, of course I know that answer to this already. The NPR issue is important because free market capitalists are threatened by an informed electorate. Because informed electorates have a nasty habit of trying to protect the consumer from fraud, injury, and death. And they have a nasty habit of noticing that their CEOs are earning 400 times their own pitiful minimum wage while underperforming and sending their jobs overseas.

However, if you can keep them quiet with cigarettes, beer, sports, and fear, they will tend to be distracted from worrying about silly things such as consumer protection. The best thing to do is get them liquored up and tell them that their way of life (cigarettes, beer, sports, etc) is being threatened by gays and evil secular forces. If that doesn't work, do the time-honored thing and start another Holy Crusade to bring God (and now democracy) to the heathens at gunpoint.

What a difference a good night sleep makes. Mme Zora, thanks for waking me up with that dope slap.

 

[JustAsking]

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.
​

Yet somehow it is. To wit: the Frontline special on AIDS properly condemns the last few presidents (democrat and republican) and all of congress for actually contributing greatly to the spread of AIDS around the world (and in the USA) through negligence and deliberate policy over the past 30 years. Its a masterpiece of journalism and presentation and panders to noone including the hands that feed it.

 

[JustAsking]

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.
​

Oh yeah, and then there is the BBC example. Perhaps the most unbiased news service in the world, completely supported by public funding.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Oh yeah, and then there is the BBC example. Perhaps the most unbiased news service in the world, completely supported by public funding.

Mmmm... not to mention that, wonderful as "free market capitalism" may be, it does not fit well with something like journalism or news media. Why not? Because the model of "energy v. entropy" begins to take over. The energy (or responsible reporting) prevails in a venue such as BBC, while the entropy (or mass-market appeal) prevails in a target-market-driven venue, such as Fox "News".

 

[Matthew]

By the way, why is gov't subsidy for NPR a bigger problem than the $Bs/year that go to for tobacco subsidy? Where are those free market guys when we really need them?

Thank you! That's the problem with most "free marketeers" -- they trot that argument out to justify or condemn whatever, but you know they'll gladly throw it by the wayside when it actually inhibits them or one of their boys from doing or getting whatever they want. I would have to say that this is more true of actual practitioners than it is of the armchair ideologues whose zeal for "the free market" is quasi-religious.

 

[DC_DEEP]

DC?

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

Aw, shucks.. is that for my passionate quote of "Va pensiero" or my views on dub's hard wurk?

 

[B_Stronzo]

Aw, shucks.. is that for my passionate quote of "Va pensiero" or my views on dub's hard wurk?

In verità? C'è le due cose . In generale, ti trovo molto divertente e profondissimo (come il tuo nome qui:wink.

 

[B_big dirigible]

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.

It might indeed be a better America, if "liberal" currently meant what it's supposed to. The word didn't always mean a childish pastiche of campus Marxism and morbid '60s nostalgia.

 

[JustAsking]

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...

Bnd, your comment about Lost reminded me that there is also a bright side to capitalism and broadcasting. There is hope in the world when shows like The Sopranos, Deadwood and West Wing get produced and are profitable. Here are some shows that violate the traditional notion that only mindless entertainment would be marketable. Consider that Deadwood cost over $1M per episode to make. Here is a show that borders on Shakespearean profundity and it manages to be profitable even with that enormous overhead.

I think pre-Sopranos, I would have been arguing that no real quality dramatic productions would show up on TV and be commercially successful. But now, HBO has become a kind of American Masterpiece Theater (at times) while being commercially successful at the same time.

Interesting, though that the model is more like a "for profit" BBC and NPR than like NBC.

 

[Shelby]

Oh yeah, and then there is the BBC example. Perhaps the most unbiased news service in the world, completely supported by public funding.

Having never lived in the UK I can't argue this point. I don't understand it though.

How an organization is able to completely staff itself with producers and reporters who have the strength to refuse to act in their own self interest in order to promote the greater good is beyond me.

I guess I'm just a cynic.

btw - I prefer PBS and NPR news to the commercial stuff. More depth. I just have a hard time buying the freedom from bias premise.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

I think pre-Sopranos, I would have been arguing that no real quality dramatic productions would show up on TV and be commercially successful. But now, HBO has become a kind of American Masterpiece Theater (at times) while being commercially successful at the same time.

I would have argued the same thing. But, as you pointed out, The Sopranos somehow defied the popular rut and so there is some glimmer of hope for commercial television after all. Still, I remain disappointed in so much of the crap that passes for entertainment on broadcast and even cable TV. Even with all the resources and creativity it has, the TV industry produces such a low volume of quality material I sometimes despair.

 

[dong20]

Having never lived in the UK I can't argue this point. I don't understand it though.

How an organization is able to completely staff itself with producers and reporters who have the strength to refuse to act in their own self interest in order to promote the greater good is beyond me.

I guess I'm just a cynic.

The BBC is interesting, part of it's success that you don't understand is that it instills a sense of pride in the high quality of its programming and as nation we are justly proud of its reputation, and not just for its news coverage, I think to at least some degree that is in employees best interests. This sense of 'pride' seems lacking in the image conscious, fiercely commercial, ad driven US model.

The BBC exists under Royal Charter, renewed every 10 years. A key requirement is to provide high quality programming that Commercial Stations would not make, too elitist I guess. FWIW the BBC is not 'publicly funded' in the sense that it relies on taxation, no 'public' funds are used in the running of the BBC, the organisation must support itself from the license fee and limited commerical activity, DVD sales for example. The licence fee is not a 'tax' as it's payable only if you have a TV, the road fund licence is a similar model, you pay it only if you run a vehicle. Annual TV 'License fees' exist throughout Europe at fees between $0.50c (+ taxation) in Albania to about 300 Euro in Switzerland. So again, I say you have it cheap.

Although it is free from direct Government control the Board of Governers is appointed by the Government (who in turn appint the Director General) that is to be replaced by the BBC Trust by the end of 2006, but the Government will still appoint at least some trustees. Despite that potential conflict it clearly works as Governments traditonaly 'hate' the BBC for ruthlessly exposing their screwups and other failings.

While I can understand Shelby (for example) being unhappy about having to 'pay' for something he may (or may not) use I don't believe PBS/NPR would function as they currently do if they had to compete in the commercial market. Surely, in a world increasingly geared to sound bite reporting and instant entertainment self gratification, any effort to raise the bar in terms of both programming and TV journalism quality should be cherished.

From an outside perspective and as an occasional visitor to the US I seldom watch TV and the main reason is....well, despite a few pearls it seems to be aimed at the lowest common denominator and, sadly that seems to get lower each time I visit.

Last time it took nearly 3 hrs to watch a 90 min movie due to the endless commericial breaks (mostly for tasty snacks, Pepto Bismol and arse ointment), sheesh, life's too short for American TV.:tongue:

I don't understand the negative connotations used here with the argument that PBS is aimed at the elite 'wealthy, successful middle classes' a statement with which I disagree by the way; is Sesame Street (as just one example) aimed only at wealthy, middle class kids? I think not.

Don't many Americans aspire to be so described or do they aspire for mediocrity as the topic title suggests? that's not been my impression but I could be wrong.

 

[JustAsking]

It might indeed be a better America, if "liberal" currently meant what it's supposed to. The word didn't always mean a childish pastiche of campus Marxism and morbid '60s nostalgia.

Yes, I agree. Why does Ann Coulter insist on using it that way?

 

[DC_DEEP]

In verità? C'è le due cose . In generale, ti trovo molto divertente e profondissimo (come il tuo nome qui:wink.

Grazie. Ma scusi prego il mio italiano difettoso. Che cosa conosco, ho imparato come musicista d'effettuazione e d'istruzione.

 

[JustAsking]

Che cosa è questo? North Jersey? Dovreste parlare inglese come il resto del mondo civilizzato. Tutto il resto di noi ottiene gli 'stugots' da questo.

 

[madame_zora]

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.

​

No one's saying "there's no possible way", only that's it's far more free of politicism in general. We don't live in a perfect world, so trying to establish a situation where if it's not perfect it can't be good is just useless. Look at what it IS, not what you fear it could become. If this was going to happen (liberals using it for politicking) it would have happened by now, and it hasn't. Not saying it couldn't possibly, just that it hasn't as of yet.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Che cosa è questo? North Jersey? Dovreste parlare inglese come il resto del mondo civilizzato. Tutto il resto di noi ottiene gli 'stugots' da questo.

Il n'y a rien mal avec la diversité. Jag strävar för att vara mindre medelmåttig. No te gusta? Por que no?

 

[madame_zora]

JA, there are a good many of us who believe in at least some Conservative principles, it's just hard to find many of them being applied right now as they are classically understood.

By the way, why is gov't subsidy for NPR a bigger problem than the $Bs/year that go to for tobacco subsidy? Where are those free market guys when we really need them?

Yes, of course I know that answer to this already. The NPR issue is important because free market capitalists are threatened by an informed electorate. Because informed electorates have a nasty habit of trying to protect the consumer from fraud, injury, and death. And they have a nasty habit of noticing that their CEOs are earning 400 times their own pitiful minimum wage while underperforming and sending their jobs overseas.

However, if you can keep them quiet with cigarettes, beer, sports, and fear, they will tend to be distracted from worrying about silly things such as consumer protection. The best thing to do is get them liquored up and tell them that their way of life (cigarettes, beer, sports, etc) is being threatened by gays and evil secular forces. If that doesn't work, do the time-honored thing and start another Holy Crusade to bring God (and now democracy) to the heathens at gunpoint.

What a difference a good night sleep makes. Mme Zora, thanks for waking me up with that dope slap.

Yeah, I sure do hate those big scary monster homos in my closet late at night- they make such a racket.


And yes, "Liberal" has become not much better (though still a little better, IMHO). Liberal has come to mean crazy, peace-sign wearing, low income, disenfranchised (gay, black, woman, minority), underemployed whiner.

Of the two, I still prefer the current libs to the current cons. I'd rather been seen as stupid (I guffaw at being thought of as such by the brew crew) than intentionally selfish on a personal level to the detriment of the nation. What was that line about "Give us your tired, your hungry, your poor....?"

Liberals are being called whiners for pointing out that what the establishment is doing is wrong. In that frame of mind, Gandhi was a whiner, as was Jesus. Martin Luther was a whiner, as was Dr. King. Anyone who has the balls to stand out and fight to change injustice will always be seen as such by those who are too lazy and too unaware to even recognise the problem, which is always "the majority" in any civilisation.

How many of you really think Jesus wouldn't be crucified on national television today? If you don't get it that what we are doing is wrong, then you just don't get it.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Che cosa è questo? North Jersey? Dovreste parlare inglese come il resto del mondo civilizzato. Tutto il resto di noi ottiene gli 'stugots' da questo.

Penso di NO! Gente di "North Jersey" non parlano l'italiano... è una lingua molto differente (forse Siciliana o Napolitana mi sembro!):biggrin1:

"Il resto del mondo civilizato" parlano inglese ???? UFFA! Se è vero, siamo stati veramente scopati... :redface:


'Il resto del mondo civilizato' parlano Italiano nel nord d'Italia ma non sono certo la lingua si parle in Calabria o Caserta ...

Per esepmio le DUE parole "questo cazzo" o (come si dice in Napoli "stugots").... :wink:

 

[dong20]

Il resto del mondo civilizato" parlano inglese ???? UFFA! Se è vero, siamo stati veramente scopati... :redface:

Not quite true, not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon....:tongue: