Times have changed since 1967, when Congress birthed public broadcasting. Then, the push was for an alternative to the three commercial television networks. But it was also to take "creative risks" and to serve underserved populations, including minorities and children. Now, with the proliferation of cable TV channels, the need for diversity is not so great. Even some liberal Democrats, such as Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, are suggesting public broadcasting is not providing the cutting-edge programming it was intended to provide and looks more and more like commercial television.It's clear: cut the funding. But they miss it and continue searching for Republican boogeymen. The editors pretend that funding from the politicians in Congress doesn't involve politics. And if taxpayer funding for broadcasting is a life-or-death necessity, then don't newspapers also need public funding? Then the politicians can have (a more direct) say in what the Seattle Times prints.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Politicians committing politics - Public Funding for Broadcasting
The Seattle Times editors today discovered politicians involved in politics. Shock!
They discovered that President Bush appointed his own person to oversee the pork that goes to public broadcasting through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. There was never a problem before because only the Democrats did this.
In their stumbling they discover the solution to the problem:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Ever watch the satellite station, FSTV (Free Speech TV)? I can't watch more than 5-10 minutes at a time, but I think that is what Public Broadcasing should be about.
Very, very deep stuff that some of the brainiacs used to talk about in the 70s. Topics range from War on Terrorism (speakers make Durbin seem like a poster child for US Patriotism), women's things, and other stuff you would expect from PBS. Cheap productions, too.
Gets me to think about things.
Post a Comment