----------------------------Original message---------------------------- On Mon, 30 Jan 1995 [log in to unmask] wrote: > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > Charles' posting again resorts to the use of expletives in characterizing > non-PBS fare. Are American Movie Classics, TNT, Bravo, C-Span, CNN, > Nickelodeon, etc. not quality channels? Especially for film and television > studies, don't Nick at Nite and AMC do a better job than PBS? The essential difference between PBS and AMC, et al, is that PBS is *public broadcasting*. While a variety of cable networks--notably Bravo--provide excellent programming, their very nature results in limited access to that programming. Many areas of this country lack cable service; those that *are* "cabled" often lack a quality selection of channels (case in point: locally, Time-Warner Cable added "Channel Z" to their system in lieu of Comedy Central). Furthermore, cable television demands monetary recompense for its delights. Conventional broadcasting is available to *all* people in practically every area; public broadcasting generally provides the best of this fare. Cable alternatives to PBS offer programming of equivalent quality--though, as mentioned before, this programming is frequently recycled from PBS. But the unique strength of PBS is that it makes quality programming available to as large an audience as possible. > Also, how about some discussion of the PBS "American Cinema" series. What did > people think? I have found AMERICAN CINEMA to be quite entertaining thus far, though its (necessary) appeal to a mass audience occasionally undermines its potential interest. The primary flaw of the series is an over-reliance on brief film clips; i'd like to see more actual discussion from the participating commentators. I'll also be extremely disappointed if the series doesn't devote significant time to independent film. Still, it's appealing, albiet lightweight, viewing. John McInnes University of Illinois