----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Charles writes: >Have not noticed much discussion on the diffrences between Public and >commercial networks (could have missed it :-)) >1. Public networks are not dominated by a corporate / profit ethic. >2. Public networks usually have specific charters which force them to cater to a broad audience (culture/language/..) rather than demographicly (read advertising) defined audience >3. The level of poor (read shit) programming is MUCH lower. >4. They have a dedication to their audience rather than advertisers. >5. Raise (or keep up) critical comment on arts/culture/politics that commercial networks are unable to maintain. >6. Not dominated by ratings. I read a NY Times editorial yesterday or the day before on smaller stations suffering more from the PBS cuts, and the reason the writer gave was that a more rural station (the example used was in North Carolina, I think) receives something like 55% of its funding from the government, but a bigger station like WNET in New York City gets about 75% of its funding from "other sources" -- mostly corporate sponsors. This dependence on corporate sponsorship has increased dramatically over the last few years -- have you noticed all the 10- or 20-second commercials attached to some PBS shows? Technically they're not commercials, they're just "sponsored by" announcements that are longer than most, but they're a sign of how accommodating PBS has become to corporate interests. I don't think it's true anymore to say that "public networks are not dominated by a corporate/profit ethic" or that "they have a dedication to their audience rather than advertisers." And I bet they are "dominated by ratings" much more now that corporate sponsors are so important -- AT&T wants the most bang for their sponsorship buck just like regular advertisers. Molly Olsen [log in to unmask]