Art and science and history. That's where PBS's programming should be. And Americans would not resent funding it. [Like hell they won't - I know I do.]Uh, Peggy, you sound exactly like a blue-state intellectual liberal snob when you make remarks like that. PBS should do what the networks won't do, but somebody "should" do? Who decides what that is? Oh, that's right, the superior intellects of eastern seaboard erudites. Can't let those backwoods hicks in Kansas decide for themselves how their money should be spent.
...and [PBS] should remember its reason for being: to do what the networks cannot do or will not do, and that somebody should do.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
More Conservative Snobbery
Arrrgh. It really, really irks me when conservatives do this sort of thing. A few months ago I tagged the EO as a "conservative intellectual snob", primarily for his disdain of market-competitive conservative talk radio in favor of taxpayer-(unwillingly)funded NPR. Now, Peggy Noonan does the same, and deserves the same tag, for her column on PBS - lines like these really annoy the crap out of me:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"Sumner Redstone is never going to pay for an 11-hour miniseries called "The Civil War"; he's not going to invest money and years of effort into a reverent exhumation of the rich loam of American history."
Right, but the History channel might well do so (I'm not sure who Sumner Redstone or any of the people to follow are).
"Bob Iger is not going to OK a three-part series on relativity theory."
Maybe not, but the Discovery channel would.
"Jeff Zucker isn't going to schedule a calm, unhurried adult drama like "Masterpiece Theatre.""
If you say so, but A&E probably would.
"[PBS should make] A history of the Second Amendment--why is it in that old Constitution?"
Yeah, they wouldn't manage to bias that story at all... "Hello and welcome to a very special PBS production. The king of England used to be mad that the colonies didn't care for his rule... So as you can see, the Second Amendment is a quaint old piece of legislature which was quite relevant in the 1800s."
Yeah man, practically everything you want can be seen on cable. Unfunded by taxpayers! I would like to see better choices in cable - I've never understood why you have to buy the 'whole package'. I've always blamed it on the inefficient local monopolies cable companies had as 'public utilities', although I think they've been deregulated, so it's probably just something with the business model. I guess I just don't know enough about the business.
I just get so annoyed with 'conservatives' regarding these matters. (I mean, we are angry at funding the National Endowment for the Arts, don't we?) At the least, they should fund PBS with local taxpayer money instead of federal dollars, similar to the way schools are (or should be) funded. Always, always, we must have more federalism! More power to states and localities, less to the usurpers in the bloated federal government!
To engicon:
Have you ever seen the programs on PBS that you are mentioning? If you had, I think you would agree that there is a significant difference in content compared to the commercial equivalents. While the Discovery channel may (although I very highly doubt it, since they are so obsessed with shows about guys building motorcycles and remodeling peoples houses) show a three-part series on relativity, there is absolutely no way that it would have the same intelectual content that a program like NOVA has, because it doesn't have to appeal to the prized 18-24 demographic, i.e. those with disposable incomes who care only about entertainment, rather than intelectual content.
I've not seen the specific shows mentioned, save possibly part of the relativity series. I've seen a fair bit of The History Channel's stuff though, and have little problem imaging them doing a satisfying series on the Civil War. PBS's version might be a bit more Howard Zinnish, but I hardly see that as a selling point. Given the popularity of Masterpiece Theater (actually I have no idea how popular it is, but I do know that it's fairly well known so I figure a few people must watch it), it seems logical that some network might even pick the production up in it's entirity if PBS couldn't continue the series.
Getting back to the relativity series, that's where I think you point is most valid. I'll not get started on how much I can't stand the idea that if I turn on a show about building motorcycles, the producers have decided that what I really want to see is people arguing. Ugg! At any rate, on expanded TV offerings there's a Discovery Channel derivative called the Science Channel. Not having any such expanded channel selection, I don't know the feel of their programming first hand. However, a glance at their website (science.discovery.com) gives hope that they might be up to the task of showing intellectually satisfying material.
My real answer to the problem of a home for quality programming though, is technological progress. As it becomes easier to send 500 channels to each home, we are more likely to get that selection. As it becomes easier to find content which specifically interests you without turning on the TV (i.e. online), TV producers will have to diversify their offerings to keep the same size audience.
Personally I actually like PBS (mostly because I watched it a lot as a kid). If I got to divide up a portion of my tax contribution myself, I wouldn't mind sending some of it PBS's way. Their political leanings don't really affect me since I'm not likely to watch any of their shows where that would be a factor. However, I don't think it right that Joe Blue Collar, who has never and never will watch Nova, gets his money stolen (at gunpoint (try not paying your taxes then trying to leave the jail to find out where the gunpoint part comes it)) to pay for PBS. I'd much rather see Joe be able to buy his daughter better soccer cleats (or whatever else he wants to spend the money on).
Imoral Majority: If you want to learn more about relativity, read a book. If you must learn from the medium that the television offers, then rent or buy a video. You can probably even find one at your local library, which is funded by taxpayers in your community. There are plenty of options available, without resorting to forced funding of a show on New Jersey classical music by folks in Texas.
The other consideration on PBS is the Sesame Street (and other educational programming) angle. If Sesame Street disapeared (though it seems almost certain that SS is one of those franchises that a commercial network would be dumb not to pick up if it were available) kids would still have Blue's Clues. What I don't know is whether BC is focused on education the way SS is.
I find the SS angle to be much more persuasive as an argument for the funding of PBS than the idea that middle America should be forced to fund elitist programming.
On another side of the issue, what about private funding. PBS is always running telethons to raise money. Maybe public funds could be spend soley on educational programming and private funds used for special interest stuff.
The argument could be made that public funds for education would be better spend on schools. As a personal case study, I sometimes think I learned more in my elementary school years from watching PBS than I did from being in school. Hardly a conclusive study, I know. Also, I recall watching taped segments of PBS programs quite a few times in primary school. Sometimes they were segments which the teacher has apparently personally recorded, commercials and all. I suppose a teacher would be send to a federal penetentiary for copyright infringment now days (at least if the broadcast industry had their way).
Post a Comment