----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Larry Jarvik asks the question: "Is this the CPB subsidy really necessary?" What is at stake in the current right-wing attempt to ambush the meager government support of public television is not simply questions of funding dollars. Rather, it is the premise (the idea) that an independent (non-commercial) broadcast entity plays a vital role in a democractic society. In fact, such an entity is increaseingly critical if we are going to maintain the possibility of any type of public discourse built around the (relatively) dynamic exchange of ideas and information. On this level the attack on public TV is not at all about money; it is precisely about ideology and about the idea that a broadcasting service should/needs to exist independent of and not driven by the demands of the market place. In light of the intense and expanding corporate control of "the means of communication" we can ill-afford to let public broadcasting be bushwhacked by a bunch of right-wing vigilantes nor be doomed to a fate of marginal relevance. In this context, to defend the idea of public television from a strictly utilitarian point of view- while both practical and necessary -represents only a partial defense and neglects the other issues that are stake. Newt's retrograde populism makes claims to a moral higher ground, and these claims fall on the receptive ears of a populace disenchanted with an inept government. Therefore, in gathering and mobilizing support for public televison, it is crucial to not sidestep the ideological and political dimensions of the debate. If we do, we run the risk of loosing not only public television but cable access as well; and furthermore relegating the the practice of public televised discourse to the domain of commercial priorities. It is unfortunate that in this moment of crisis what we defending is the status quo rather than the expansion of public television. Because a great deal needs to be done to make public television relevent and exciting. Allan Siegel [log in to unmask]