SCREEN-L Archives

February 1995, Week 3

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:
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 15 Feb 1995 19:23:59 CST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (26 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Re: Murdoch & PBS
 
Look, I do the PBS issue, I travel in conservative circles,  and I talk to
communications lobbyists, including those from Fox, etc. Fox is opposed to
privatization of PBS, on the record and off the record, including behind the
scenes.
The National Association of Broadcasters is also opposed to privatization of
PBS. Broadcasters have always wanted to restrict competition over the air.
PBS does a good job of blocking what might be competing channels. That is why
it has had NAB support from day one. FX is a cable, not broadcast, channel,
like CNBC, owned by a broadcaster.
Speculation is not evidence, theories -- especially conspiracy theories --
are not facts. Lets stick to the facts, especially as this is supposed to be
of scholarly interest.
The players who might be willing to take over PBS right now are telephone
companies and the cable companies. Others such as Microsoft, etc. are
wished-for. But the broadcasters including Fox are backing PBS.
Also, you might note that PBS stations are members of the National
Association of Broadcasters.
In fact Time-Warner and Paramount are probably more favorably inclined to the
privatization initiative than Fox because they want channels for their new
networks UPN and WB.
Larry Jarvik
CSPC

ATOM RSS1 RSS2