Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 7 Feb 1995 16:51:09 CST |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
The long-running thread here about whether or not the
government/tax-payers should be spending money on tv
programming has been extremely helpful in helping me
form more focused opinions. But more a tangible, and
therefore influential, event has started me on really
re-thinking about my earlier dogma of supporting publicly
funded programs to the bitter end.
I watch a *lot* of public television. I love it. But, it also was
the only free station that showed what I wanted to watch
because I don't watch sitcoms, sports, drama serials,
newsmagine programs or talk shows (okay, one or
two). I also don't have the personal resources to pay
for a quality cable station like Bravo (in my area they were
asking something like $18 a month for Bravo). But now,
in the nick of time, Bravo is being offered free in my cable
tv service area.
Well, this seems like a smart move on the part of Bravo and/or
the cable company, because if they can offer the service free
and a lot of people watch it, they can ask for big money in
advertising costs from the same corporate giants who
finance the programming on PBS. I would support PBS
being sold to someone (preferably *not* Murdoch) on the
condition that the government regulate it heavily, which is
my liberalism showing. We'd just be spending the same
money on the regulatory agency instead of the Public
Broadcasting System.
|
|
|