Why should those private companies be priviledged over the immediate social good that is the BBC?
As I think I've already alluded to, the BBC is my primary news source. I go there to find out what's happening in the world. The quality is simply fantastic. But at the same time, a government is running a business that competes with a private corporation, even if it can do so much more efficiently, then they are interfering in that market and should stop.
The news wouldn't cease to exist, it just wouldn't be presented so neatly. Aggregation sites like news.google.com, news.yahoo.com, or newsbot.msnbc.msn.com, could probably fill the gap as they evolve.
I think the heart of this issue for me is a philosophical one. I just don't believe that the government should interfere -- in our bedrooms or in our economies. So at the same time that gives me a lot in common with and gets me into quite a few disagreements with both conservatives/republicans and liberals/democratics. I guess that makes me a libertarian. It makes election time a real pain -- I have to choose between a party whose morals I find backwards (opposing gay marriage) or a party whose fiscal policies are intrusive and wasteful (imposing a gun registry).
fish tick,
I see, and I apologize if I offended you (or anyone) by my comments. I don't think tv watching equates with bad parenting. I do understand there are times when one does need something to distract the kids, even if just to get a break. I didn't mean to snear about it, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.
jb,
The private companies are doing just fine, and the whole country benefits.
Perhaps, but in the tv/radio space the public company is consuming a very large market share that would be eaten up by those private companies and there would be more room for others to play.
There are some complaints around, but mostly in the new media sectors like the Internet. Really, how can a newspaper compete and push itself into a web presence when the excellent BBC is already in that space offering a free service. I use the BBC news site all the time, and would miss its closure, but it does stifle competition.
It's a hard thing to do, balancing public service with allowing private companies to make a profit. In theory I'd rather see the state get out of any market where more than one private company is willing and able to perform the function. But then considering my market is currently undergoing a slow and very painful energy deregulation, I'm not so naive to believe that it always works out so well in practise.
fish tick,
I fail to see the relevancy of whether or not I've raised children to this discussion. Or indeed the comments about my surfing habits at work, which I found odd...
We are discussing the use of television as an education tool, and I am saying that if you just sit your child down in front of the tv and walk away to do whatever else, you're using it as a babysitter not to educate.
I wasn't even being judgmental about the practise (if you want to be judged do a google on "television as a babysitter")
If you do want to sit them in front of the box and be free of commercials, you don't need a government-funded PBS, just a vcr or dvd player.
If you want to use the television as an actual means to educate your child then sit with them and discuss it with them. But there are better ways to do that, like reading together, unless I suppose they are interested in a specific subject (like Pirates or Egypt or whatever) and there is a great documentary or something?
I think one fundamental point of disagreement here is that I don't see television as a means of education. It's an idiot box where kids just sit and absorb information. If you're seriously interested in educating your children then half an hour with a book beats half an hour of any programming and day. Unless you are sitting down and watching together and actually discussing the programme with the child, all you're doing is using it as a cheap babysitter. And having them veg in front of Sesame Street just makes you feel less guilty than Yu-Gi-Oh.
Lower income families who can't afford to access quality programming because they're only available on cable or paid channels can visit the public library (which IS a good destination of tax dollars) and borrow DVDs or tapes along with books.
As for the market not being responsible enough to be left to dictate culture, the market represents the will of real people much better than the government ever will. People may prefer shows like Simple Life to Antiques Roadshow, but you know what? God help us, that's our culture. The shitty films that are coming out of Hollywood, the terrible plastic sounds coming from the RIAA... They're making billions, because that's what people really watch and really listen to.
That I and others here watch PBS, and that so many care so passionately about the programming, that pledge drives are so successful... It shows that there is a sizable minority that does care and that people are willing to support public television. So let them, and stop taking money from people who would rather stare at Paris Hilton's tits.
I believe the government has a responsibility to provide the availability of education to all of its citizens; but TV does not need to be an essential part of that mandate, and I believe that it shouldn't be (which is obviously a minority opinion here).
I also think that the situation in the UK with the BBC is reprehensible in a non-communist nation. Private companies should not be forced to compete with public ones. But that's a different issue ;)
jb,
But if private broadcasters are unwilling to put something on tv because they're afraid that it won't make money (and the point of British programming is largely moot thanks to modern stations like BBC Canada and BBC America as good examples :) then why should your government subsidize it?
Why should you as a US taxpayer pay a British publisher so that I, a Canadian, can watch Benny Hill? Oh hang on, I'm getting something for nothing.. Nevermind, carry on!
HuronBob,
explain to me why a private, for profit station would provide commercial free tv geared towards the education of children?
Because if there's a demand for it then people will pay and there's a profit to be made in that niche, and if there isn't a demand then people won't pay and the company will fold. That's what living in a free market is all about, no?
In my market there are specialty channels that are user-pay (about $1CAN per month) stations that are both quality and profitable. I subscribe to the ones I want, and pay nothing towards the ones I don't. If I was looking for quality programming for kids I would subscribe to Animal Planet, Discovery Kids, and perhaps BBC Kids. There's also the National Geographic, Discovery Civilizatoins, Discovery Health, Book TV, and a load of others for adults. And there are more being added regularly as new stations are approved by the CRTC. I'm sure there is a similar private system in the US. Commercial does not have to equate with poor quality or non-educational.
Sesame Street is a brand that would obviously still make money if it were to switch to another channel, it's not going to die just because the government stops subsidizing it.
I'm familiar with PBS, I've watched the 'local' station in Spokane often enough until I discovered BitTorrent. Nowhere else managed to provide my fix of British sci-fi comedies like they did. But they do nothing as a television station that a private station couldn't do. Sesame Street wouldn't die without public funding, and any other shows that are successful/profitable would stay alive as well.
If the government wants to provide money for education they should put it straight into the classroom not into a tv station. Kinds need to spend more time outside playing and less time sat on the couch.
..I believe is this very same fellow gave me a career-killing review on a North America wide review board
I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to this sort of thing, but wouldn't the best way to combat that be to get people who really have met you to write positive reviews? Surely if there are a dozen positive reviews and only one negative, no matter how negative that review is it will be obvious that it's a fake?
Films, books, and songs get good and bad reviews all the time which is why you have to just find somebody whose review of past materials matches your own and view their reviews of things you are thinking about reading or seeing. Wouldn't the same hold true here?
Seems to me you should just coach people who do write positive reviews that there's some psycho troll and the best way to reply to him is 'Hey, I know what I saw last month/week, and it was nothing like what you describe?'
On the hacking/making life miserable front.. Do you know the guy's name? Not working at Burger King, the law may not be as helpful to you but there must be other ways of persuasion? Maybe meet the guy face to face in a very public place and say 'See, we haven't met'?
Sounds like a really shitty situation for you, but there are definitely ways out.
What happened to free market and letting a product stand or fall on its own? Other childrens shows manage to stay profitable, surely it's unfair for the government to just give money to Sesame Street? I don't understand what the big deal is.
No. They will claim that the fantasies they are discussing are just that - fantasies - and thus protected under the First Amendment
But! Having the fantasies may unfortunately not be enough to lock somebody up, but shouldn't that be enough cause to probe into the guy's life and find out if there are any children around him who are potentially in danger? Find out if the guy has kids at home, a gf with kids, works as a scout leader?
I guess I just think there should be much more effort placed in protecting our kids, a real threat that's happening under our noses, than there is fighting the terror bugaboo.
moneyjane,
And nobody will let him anywhere near their kids.
You would think, but some people are just plain stupid when it comes to the safety of their children. What parent would let their kids sleep over at a grown man's house? Seriously? Even if the guy was f-ing the Pope, what's he doing sharing a bed with your kid with your knowledge and permission? Then throw in that the guy bribed his way out of a molestation case 12 years ago and Social Services really should be involved with both the parents and Michael.
I mean c'mon, the guy admitted that he sleeps with boys. That's just wrong. Shouldn't that be enough for the authorities to at least get an injunction keeping him out of reach of any kids until he learns how to act appropriately around them?
The guy's a serious fucking loser.
Amen.
bernockle,
Interesting that so many people seem to be focusing on the poor quality of the prosecution's witnesses.
Because that's why the case has to have failed. The family had a huge credibility problem because they made previous allegations that were proven false. It's not that they were criminals, it's that they are proven money-diggers and it's the natural effect of crying wolf. Does that mean that they shouldn't be believed, probably not. But it makes it a lot harder.
It looked like the prosecutors just expected Michael's weirdness to do all of the work for them. Having your star witness admit to perjury and plead the 5th on welfare fraud... Not good. The sad thing is that we'll never really know if he did it or not.
Me, I was just shocked to find that he's normal where it counts and uses the intrawebs to find porn.
Why should those private companies be priviledged over the immediate social good that is the BBC? As I think I've already alluded to, the BBC is my primary news source. I go there to find out what's happening in the world. The quality is simply fantastic. But at the same time, a government is running a business that competes with a private corporation, even if it can do so much more efficiently, then they are interfering in that market and should stop. The news wouldn't cease to exist, it just wouldn't be presented so neatly. Aggregation sites like news.google.com, news.yahoo.com, or newsbot.msnbc.msn.com, could probably fill the gap as they evolve. I think the heart of this issue for me is a philosophical one. I just don't believe that the government should interfere -- in our bedrooms or in our economies. So at the same time that gives me a lot in common with and gets me into quite a few disagreements with both conservatives/republicans and liberals/democratics. I guess that makes me a libertarian. It makes election time a real pain -- I have to choose between a party whose morals I find backwards (opposing gay marriage) or a party whose fiscal policies are intrusive and wasteful (imposing a gun registry).
posted by christiandarke 19 years ago
fish tick, I see, and I apologize if I offended you (or anyone) by my comments. I don't think tv watching equates with bad parenting. I do understand there are times when one does need something to distract the kids, even if just to get a break. I didn't mean to snear about it, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.
posted by christiandarke 19 years ago
jb, The private companies are doing just fine, and the whole country benefits. Perhaps, but in the tv/radio space the public company is consuming a very large market share that would be eaten up by those private companies and there would be more room for others to play. There are some complaints around, but mostly in the new media sectors like the Internet. Really, how can a newspaper compete and push itself into a web presence when the excellent BBC is already in that space offering a free service. I use the BBC news site all the time, and would miss its closure, but it does stifle competition. It's a hard thing to do, balancing public service with allowing private companies to make a profit. In theory I'd rather see the state get out of any market where more than one private company is willing and able to perform the function. But then considering my market is currently undergoing a slow and very painful energy deregulation, I'm not so naive to believe that it always works out so well in practise.
posted by christiandarke 19 years ago
fish tick, I fail to see the relevancy of whether or not I've raised children to this discussion. Or indeed the comments about my surfing habits at work, which I found odd... We are discussing the use of television as an education tool, and I am saying that if you just sit your child down in front of the tv and walk away to do whatever else, you're using it as a babysitter not to educate. I wasn't even being judgmental about the practise (if you want to be judged do a google on "television as a babysitter") If you do want to sit them in front of the box and be free of commercials, you don't need a government-funded PBS, just a vcr or dvd player. If you want to use the television as an actual means to educate your child then sit with them and discuss it with them. But there are better ways to do that, like reading together, unless I suppose they are interested in a specific subject (like Pirates or Egypt or whatever) and there is a great documentary or something?
posted by christiandarke 19 years ago
I think one fundamental point of disagreement here is that I don't see television as a means of education. It's an idiot box where kids just sit and absorb information. If you're seriously interested in educating your children then half an hour with a book beats half an hour of any programming and day. Unless you are sitting down and watching together and actually discussing the programme with the child, all you're doing is using it as a cheap babysitter. And having them veg in front of Sesame Street just makes you feel less guilty than Yu-Gi-Oh. Lower income families who can't afford to access quality programming because they're only available on cable or paid channels can visit the public library (which IS a good destination of tax dollars) and borrow DVDs or tapes along with books. As for the market not being responsible enough to be left to dictate culture, the market represents the will of real people much better than the government ever will. People may prefer shows like Simple Life to Antiques Roadshow, but you know what? God help us, that's our culture. The shitty films that are coming out of Hollywood, the terrible plastic sounds coming from the RIAA... They're making billions, because that's what people really watch and really listen to. That I and others here watch PBS, and that so many care so passionately about the programming, that pledge drives are so successful... It shows that there is a sizable minority that does care and that people are willing to support public television. So let them, and stop taking money from people who would rather stare at Paris Hilton's tits. I believe the government has a responsibility to provide the availability of education to all of its citizens; but TV does not need to be an essential part of that mandate, and I believe that it shouldn't be (which is obviously a minority opinion here). I also think that the situation in the UK with the BBC is reprehensible in a non-communist nation. Private companies should not be forced to compete with public ones. But that's a different issue ;)
posted by christiandarke 19 years ago
jb, But if private broadcasters are unwilling to put something on tv because they're afraid that it won't make money (and the point of British programming is largely moot thanks to modern stations like BBC Canada and BBC America as good examples :) then why should your government subsidize it? Why should you as a US taxpayer pay a British publisher so that I, a Canadian, can watch Benny Hill? Oh hang on, I'm getting something for nothing.. Nevermind, carry on!
posted by christiandarke 19 years ago
HuronBob, explain to me why a private, for profit station would provide commercial free tv geared towards the education of children? Because if there's a demand for it then people will pay and there's a profit to be made in that niche, and if there isn't a demand then people won't pay and the company will fold. That's what living in a free market is all about, no? In my market there are specialty channels that are user-pay (about $1CAN per month) stations that are both quality and profitable. I subscribe to the ones I want, and pay nothing towards the ones I don't. If I was looking for quality programming for kids I would subscribe to Animal Planet, Discovery Kids, and perhaps BBC Kids. There's also the National Geographic, Discovery Civilizatoins, Discovery Health, Book TV, and a load of others for adults. And there are more being added regularly as new stations are approved by the CRTC. I'm sure there is a similar private system in the US. Commercial does not have to equate with poor quality or non-educational. Sesame Street is a brand that would obviously still make money if it were to switch to another channel, it's not going to die just because the government stops subsidizing it.
posted by christiandarke 19 years ago
I'm familiar with PBS, I've watched the 'local' station in Spokane often enough until I discovered BitTorrent. Nowhere else managed to provide my fix of British sci-fi comedies like they did. But they do nothing as a television station that a private station couldn't do. Sesame Street wouldn't die without public funding, and any other shows that are successful/profitable would stay alive as well. If the government wants to provide money for education they should put it straight into the classroom not into a tv station. Kinds need to spend more time outside playing and less time sat on the couch.
posted by christiandarke 19 years ago
In "Furious George"
..I believe is this very same fellow gave me a career-killing review on a North America wide review board I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to this sort of thing, but wouldn't the best way to combat that be to get people who really have met you to write positive reviews? Surely if there are a dozen positive reviews and only one negative, no matter how negative that review is it will be obvious that it's a fake? Films, books, and songs get good and bad reviews all the time which is why you have to just find somebody whose review of past materials matches your own and view their reviews of things you are thinking about reading or seeing. Wouldn't the same hold true here? Seems to me you should just coach people who do write positive reviews that there's some psycho troll and the best way to reply to him is 'Hey, I know what I saw last month/week, and it was nothing like what you describe?' On the hacking/making life miserable front.. Do you know the guy's name? Not working at Burger King, the law may not be as helpful to you but there must be other ways of persuasion? Maybe meet the guy face to face in a very public place and say 'See, we haven't met'? Sounds like a really shitty situation for you, but there are definitely ways out.
posted by christiandarke 19 years ago
In "SIGN THIS NOW!!!"
What happened to free market and letting a product stand or fall on its own? Other childrens shows manage to stay profitable, surely it's unfair for the government to just give money to Sesame Street? I don't understand what the big deal is.
posted by christiandarke 19 years ago
In "Michael Jackson not guilty of all 10 charges ..."
No. They will claim that the fantasies they are discussing are just that - fantasies - and thus protected under the First Amendment But! Having the fantasies may unfortunately not be enough to lock somebody up, but shouldn't that be enough cause to probe into the guy's life and find out if there are any children around him who are potentially in danger? Find out if the guy has kids at home, a gf with kids, works as a scout leader? I guess I just think there should be much more effort placed in protecting our kids, a real threat that's happening under our noses, than there is fighting the terror bugaboo.
posted by christiandarke 19 years ago
If somebody is bragging to you about being a pedophile, don't you need to call the police or something?
posted by christiandarke 19 years ago
moneyjane, And nobody will let him anywhere near their kids. You would think, but some people are just plain stupid when it comes to the safety of their children. What parent would let their kids sleep over at a grown man's house? Seriously? Even if the guy was f-ing the Pope, what's he doing sharing a bed with your kid with your knowledge and permission? Then throw in that the guy bribed his way out of a molestation case 12 years ago and Social Services really should be involved with both the parents and Michael. I mean c'mon, the guy admitted that he sleeps with boys. That's just wrong. Shouldn't that be enough for the authorities to at least get an injunction keeping him out of reach of any kids until he learns how to act appropriately around them? The guy's a serious fucking loser. Amen.
posted by christiandarke 19 years ago
bernockle, Interesting that so many people seem to be focusing on the poor quality of the prosecution's witnesses. Because that's why the case has to have failed. The family had a huge credibility problem because they made previous allegations that were proven false. It's not that they were criminals, it's that they are proven money-diggers and it's the natural effect of crying wolf. Does that mean that they shouldn't be believed, probably not. But it makes it a lot harder.
posted by christiandarke 19 years ago
It looked like the prosecutors just expected Michael's weirdness to do all of the work for them. Having your star witness admit to perjury and plead the 5th on welfare fraud... Not good. The sad thing is that we'll never really know if he did it or not. Me, I was just shocked to find that he's normal where it counts and uses the intrawebs to find porn.
posted by christiandarke 19 years ago
(limited to the most recent 20 comments)