David Boaz makes a
fantastic cultural case against federal funding of PBS, an
organization that consistently confuses its ability to cater to a
niche bourgeoisie audience with an unquestionable moral crusade on
behalf of all. Here's the final paragraphs, but please do go read
the whole piece:
The main point here isn't the money, it's the separation of news
and state. If anything should be kept separate from
government and politics, it's the news and public-affairs
programming that informs Americans about government and its
policies. When government brings us the news -- with all the
inevitable bias and spin -- it is putting its thumb on the scales
of democracy.
A healthy democracy needs a free and diverse press -- but
Americans today have access to more sources of news and opinion
than ever before: more broadcast networks than before, cable
networks, satellite TV and radio, the Internet. Any diversity
argument for NPR and PBS is now a sad joke.
We don't need a government news and opinion network. More
important, we shouldn't require taxpayers to pay for broadcasting
that will inevitably reflect a particular perspective on politics
and culture. The marketplace of democracy should be a free market,
in which the voices of citizens are heard, with no unfair advantage
granted by government to one participant.
Hmmm . "We shouldn't require taxpayers to pay for broadcasting
that will inevitably reflect a particular perspective on politics
and culture." Sounds good, but how can we make people understand
that? I know, let's cut all the funding for PBS and divert it to
Fox. You know, share the wealth. Then let's see how that goes over
with the New York Times.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.2.11 @ 9:51AM
Shawn,
you are KIDDING right?
Hey! We NEED the PRAVDA!
Rick V.| 6.2.11 @ 11:22AM
Hmmm . "We shouldn't require taxpayers to pay for broadcasting that will inevitably reflect a particular perspective on politics and culture." Sounds good, but how can we make people understand that? I know, let's cut all the funding for PBS and divert it to Fox. You know, share the wealth. Then let's see how that goes over with the New York Times.