SCREEN-L Archives

January 1995, Week 4


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
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 25 Jan 1995 13:23:49 CST
text/plain (25 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Luke writes:
"Yes, right now TV is responsible for our children's education.  As for the
2nd question, WE CAN'T trust them.  If Newt Gingrich has his way, I forsee a
"vast wasteland" such as that which Newton Minnow spoke of 35 years ago.  I
really don't think education will be on their agenda unless it would bring
in the max profit--which it doesn't.  Hard Copy and Geraldo does."
Well--there are sops thrown here and there, but many of them rip off or spin
off ideas generated by CTW and other PBS enterprises.  The opponents of
public tv often point to the variety of "narrowcast" channels on cable, but
that overlooks 3 elements:
1. Many of those narrowcast channels (A&E, Discovery ,et al.) recycle materials
from PBS, or as above, are at least insprired by previous PBS efforts.
2. What channels are available depends on the community and the whim of the
cable operators--we have no access to BRAVO, the Learning Channel, or even
the SF Channel, just to name a few.
3. Getting those channels in the first place means paying a cable fee, which
broadcast public tv doesn't require.  And even if you pay a fee, you can
get public tv usually at the lowest "tier" rates, but often have to pay
extra for higher tier "speciality" channels.  (And that doesn't include
such premium, additional-fee channels as Disney, Cinemax, Showtime, etc.).
--Don Larsson, Mankato State U., MN