Public Television

I believe that it is our responsibility as a democratic society to have at least, at the absolute very least, two public television and two public radio stations. Here we are, walking around, talking about how free we are, are democratic we are and yet the only way people can get their information is from a source that has advertising.

Is advertising bad?? Well, not in and of itself. But supposed the advertisers, or should I say the people with the money, do not like what you are broadcasting? Guess what, they don't give you money. Without money, how in the freaking world are you going to ever broadcast anything? So you change your programming in the hopes of getting some of that money so you can broadcast at least something, even if it's not exactly what you want. Does this truly happen? Do I really need to answer that question.

The purpose of public tv and radio stations is so there is a source of information that is not influenced by the people with money, that are independent of being bought one way or the other, and might have controversial, truthful, and different programming. The type of programming you won't find anywhere else. I mean, how long would NOVA last on any regular station? And do we want Baywatch, CSI, and Fox news to be the only sources of information people have? Seriously, I have met people who, after watching CSI, believe it only takes 5 minutes to run an HPLC and believe that CSI really solves investigations. Believe me, they don't.

Now, since we live in a democratic society, where we have to make our own choices and vote for propositions and leaders, wouldn't it be nice to have a source of information whose content is not dependent on who has the money? I certainly think so.

Now, some of you might say, well, we have PBS, isn't that enough? First of all, if you think that, you haven't been watching a lot of PBS. IT HAS COMMERICIALS NOW!!! Granted, it's not as bad as regular tv, but they are there. I want to do a study and see if there is a difference in programming from before they started commercials and afterwards. I bet there are a lot more antique road shows going on now. Not as controversial.

Also, there seems to be a huge effort to get rid of PBS. Come on peoples, we pay $1 - 2 per person, per year, for PBS (I have found figures from $.70 to $1.70, I am not sure which is accurate quite yet, I need more time to research). That's it. Should we try and figure out how much we are paying for a current war in Iraq, plus all the costs we will eventually be paying in medical care, mental health, etc. Yet, despite this, congress has tried, several times to say that what we really need to do is cut PBS's budget, that will solve all of our budget issues. While this is going on, Ken Tomlinson spent 10,000 of the tax payer’s money to pay someone to watch NOW with Bill Moyers to prove that it has a liberal bias. Interestingly enough, the results of this were kept under wraps and never shown to the public. Wonder why not. (BTY, Moyers is a wonderful, wonderful, writer and speaker. Read his speech about his reaction to the attack on public television. It's fabulous. I would do anything to work for a person like him.).

So currently, there are no true public television or radio stations. Which, in my opinion is quite sad. It just means that those with money have power over all sources of media. I can't remember where I read this and what the numbers are, but I do remember reading that about 10 people control practically all newspapers, radio stations, and television stations in the United States. If those ten what you to think a certain way, believe me, they will be able to make you think that way. Rupert Murdoch is a genius at that.

One may ask, why two stations? Shouldn't one be enough? I say two, just so there can be two stations, free from commercials, that can have different but opposing view points. And that's two, at the minimum.

I would also like the budget of the stations to be free from fear of the government. That way they can say things for and against administrations without fear of reprisal. Seriously, do you think this happens today? Oh, no, oh nonononononononono.

So what can we do? Well, of course, first support public radio and tv, but here's another idea. My brother just moved to South Africa. In South Africa, to buy a TV you have to pay a yearly licensing fee. Same in England. Every year, you pay 50-100 bucks. Gosh, that totally sucks. Until you realize that all that money goes to public television and radio stations. Yep, even South Africa has public television stations. How sad is it that this country that purports itself to be the beacon of democracy can't even provide one station.

My proposal. Why not pay a fee? Even $25 a year would increase the budget of PBS? Why shouldn't we try something drastic like supporting public stations and having unbiased information? Can you imaging a society like that? Actually, I am not sure that I can.