SCREEN-L Archives

January 1995, Week 5

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Allan Siegel <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 31 Jan 1995 12:00:30 CST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (43 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Larry Jarvik asks the question: "Is this the CPB subsidy really necessary?"
 
What is at stake in the current right-wing attempt to ambush the meager
government support of public television is not simply questions of funding
dollars. Rather, it is the premise (the idea) that an independent
(non-commercial) broadcast entity plays a vital role in a democractic
society. In fact, such an entity is increaseingly critical if we are going
to maintain the possibility of any  type of public discourse built around
the (relatively) dynamic exchange of ideas and information. On this level
the attack on public TV is not at all about  money; it is precisely about
ideology and about the idea that a broadcasting service should/needs to
exist independent of and  not driven by the demands of the market place.
 
In light of the intense and expanding corporate control of "the means of
communication" we can ill-afford to let public broadcasting be bushwhacked
by a bunch of right-wing  vigilantes nor be doomed to a fate of marginal
relevance. In this context, to defend the idea of public television from a
strictly utilitarian point of view-  while both practical and necessary
-represents only a partial defense and neglects the other issues that are
stake.
 
Newt's retrograde populism makes claims to a moral higher ground, and these
claims fall on the receptive ears of a populace disenchanted with an inept
government. Therefore, in gathering  and mobilizing  support for public
televison, it is  crucial to not sidestep the ideological and political
dimensions of the debate.  If we do, we run the risk of loosing not only
public television but cable access as well; and furthermore relegating the
the practice of public televised discourse to the domain of commercial
priorities.
 
It is unfortunate that in this moment of crisis what we defending is the
status quo rather than the expansion of public television. Because a great
deal  needs to be done to make public television relevent and exciting.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Allan Siegel
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2