SCREEN-L Archives

February 1995, Week 1

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:
"Tonelli, Melissa" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 7 Feb 1995 16:51:09 CST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (31 lines)
----------------------------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.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2