Why Do We Have Public TV?
The original theory behind state-supported television was that it would give voice to those excluded from the marketplace. After all, commercial television's interests are not necessarily in line with the national interest. What about the millions of the poor, benighted Americans who don't fit into the few demographic targets that commercial television serve in order to maximize profits?
Now comes the news that the Public Broadcasting Service will replay three original HBO films after they have completed a month-long run on the premium cable channel. Could someone explain what market failure argument justifies the use of tax dollars to provide a (so-called) good that is already being produced by the market? How is it in the national interest to provide HBO films to the segment of the population that might like to see them but who otherwise choose not to pay the subscription?
In truth, public television is first and foremost about maintaining support for the federal government that funds it. In a TV-drenched society, socializing "premium content" TV is one way to accomplish this goal. As one who gave up the tube back in the mid-1990s, I find it amazing that now the viewing of HBO films are now considered not only a consumption good, but a civil right.
Comments (14)
Vanmind
I would guess that after a while, state-run enterprises like PBS realize that their business model is a money-loser, so they try to "cut costs" by cutting original programming in favour of purchasing reruns from third-party producers (hence all the "Red Dwarf" and "Faulty Towers"). They then, for reasons that have to do with their paycheques and pretense of prestige, fail to conclude that:
1. Such programming cuts undermine the very reason for which they were founded
2. Such mismanagement, money hemorrhaging and dereliction-of-duty as a public broadcaster suggests that the country might be better off without them
I do find, however, that the CBC does not mind biting the hand that feeds it. I think they've become so entrenched in the Canadian psyche that network managers figure the government "wouldn't dare to get rid of us altogether."
Published: January 10, 2005 6:21 PM
Michael A. Clem
I think that it's most interesting that with the advent of the less-regulated cable television industry, so much "qality" television is available: A&E, Turner Movie Channel, Discovery, History, etc. One has to wonder what network television would have been like if it had remained largely unregulated.
Published: January 10, 2005 7:24 PM
Sudha Shenoy
Suppose the airwaves were private property? At present, the FCC monopolises scarce & valuable broadcast space & 'licenses' particular firms to use particular bits. The 'licenses' have to be renewed periodically, of course, with all the usual implications. *This* is the root of the problem: a scarce resource is monopolised by officials.
Published: January 10, 2005 9:26 PM
Steven Kane
Why do we have public TV? Very simple. We have public TV because in order for the government to preserve itself and maintain popular support it has to placate a variety of special interests of taxpayers.
Published: January 10, 2005 10:27 PM
Vanmind
Yeah, it's hard to lay claim to homesteading the airwaves unless you lobby for government regulations.
I get a kick out of broadcasters who license public airwaves and then complain that viewers are "stealing" from them if they don't agree to watch their commercials. If I'm not watching the commercials then I'm not using the licensed airwaves, so bring on the lawsuit if you want because I'll bankrupt you with a counter-suit.
So says I. Ha.
Published: January 10, 2005 10:42 PM
Terry James
Yes, unregulated market run television programming is so much better as we can induldge in the true american experience of such quality viewing as the endless mind numbing fixation with degenerate sociopaths in 'the sopranos'or we can watch another in the myriad of ww2 how we kicked hitler's ass docudramas,or my favorite,an edge of the seat nail biting episode of watching a group of pot bellied red necks build the ultimate motorcyle...you know people life is more than how best to gather and hoard federal reserve paper tokens while paying homage to the idol god of greed ,free market.......
Published: January 12, 2005 2:01 AM
Michael A. Clem
Please, Mr. James, tell us how you would force people to watch the programs that you think constitute "quality programming"?
And let's not forget the 50-year experiment we've already had with network television. Does Gilligan's Island or The Brady Bunch meet your "quality" criteria? The simple fact that cable viewers can watch TVLand OR they can watch A&E is already a big improvement over what the networks offered when I was growing up.
The issue is not about greed, it's about freedom and choice. The freedom of producers to make quality programming that actually has a chance of being viewed and the choice of consumers to decide if they want to watch such programming or not.
Published: January 12, 2005 10:30 AM
Terry James
Well Michael, first of all I never alluded to forcing anyone to watch anything.Second of all quality programming is pretty much self explanatory,if it promotes violence,ethno-centracism or vulgarity it probably is not quality.The fact that freedom and choice is the catch all mantra of free market thinking demonstrates why we have a shortage of quality.You are right it is not about greed,it is about greed and ignorance,the less society is able to exercise critical thinking and to make choices that are constructive and affirming, the greater the potential for programming that appeals to the lowest common denominator.Free market is not free to do any damn thing it pleases,without accountability by individuals,responsible to the whole, this becomes a gangster state, where money is the only value princple......
Published: January 12, 2005 6:23 PM
Michael A. Clem
"Shortage of quality"? "Lowest common denominator"? Compared to what? The late 1960s and early 1970s when we had such "quality" programming as the previously mentioned Gilligan's Island and the Brady Bunch?
Of course the "free market" isn't able to do any darn thing it pleases, and neither are private businesses that produce television programming. If nobody wants to watch their programming, they're out of business. That's accountability. Money isn't a value in itself--it's merely a means to attaining values. Making money is about providing other people with what they need and want, and I just can't see anything evil in that.
Once again, when I consider the TV I grew up with compared to today's television, there's no comparison. Sure, there's plenty of garbage out there, but there's also more quality programming than ever before, too, more market niches than ever before. That didn't happen because of the FCC.
And if you don't support freedom and choice, then what can I conclude except that you want somebody to forcibly limit what kind of programming is available (i.e. be "responsible to the whole"), and prevent large numbers of people from watching what they are obviously choosing to watch? Doesn't the "whole" include those people, too?
Published: January 12, 2005 8:01 PM
J Butler
Yeah, we can all watch the quality programming on PBS. Uh..., what do they show on PBS? The people at PBS don't know how to advertise.
Published: January 12, 2005 9:57 PM
Terry James
Yeah those market niches,along with all the pornography and violence choice demands, you can,forty years later,pay to watch Gilligans Island albeit with a couple more minutes of advertising,hey those $75 000 SUV's are not going to sell themselves,so whip out those credit cards,add to that 7 trillion dollar debt and enjoy the myth of freedom............
Published: January 14, 2005 1:39 PM
zuzu
Just a quickie:
Is PBS still state owned? I thought the government cut them off many years ago; perhaps the most funding PBS programming receives is from the NEA.
Doesn't the PBS / NPR today follow what on the internet is referred to as the "paypal model"? They provide a service and then ask for donations to fund future services. If anything, this represents are more closely coupled market economy because people receive what they pay for, not what advertisers want them to see. (You literally donate funds during the programs you enjoy, providing direct feedback of "yes, i'm willing to invest in this".) Though FAIR has also investigated the nature of their program underwriters, though that has more to do with corporate slant than government control. (Commanding Heights is still a great documentary (available online in quicktime format), despite being underwritten by Enron.)
-z
p.s. If you really want to pick on state owned airwaves, go to the source: the FCC.
Published: January 15, 2005 4:01 PM
Michael A. Clem
Terry, do you not have cable or satellite TV? Or do you just ignore all those other channels that provide programming network TV never or rarely did? Or perhaps it's paying for quality television that bothers you?
Since we have so many more choices now than ever before, I'm having trouble understanding just exactly what bothers you with this situation. If you've got an alternative to current or historical television, I haven't seen it, yet. What do you think we ought to have?
Published: January 15, 2005 4:53 PM
Eric
Wow, state-run television? Where have I seen that before......
Try lightening up a bit.
Published: June 10, 2005 2:10 PM