esco@ssc-vax.UUCP (Michael Esco) (12/05/84)
The showing of `Testament' on PBS last week reopened an old wound of mine. For those of you who aren't familiar with the film, it concerns the effects of a nuclear war on a small California town. I saw this film during its theatrical release and was suprised to see in the credits that it was funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The explanation I heard was that CBP hoped that monies received would offset the production costs of what essentially was a made-for-TV movie. This, to me, raises several pertinent issues about the activities of the CPB. First, what right does a government-funded agency have to be in the commercial film industry, investing tax dollars to compete with legitimate private enterprises? Will the department of agriculture open a chain of fast-food places next? Second, why is a government-funded agency spending tax dollars on an overtly political film? Will they be producing the sequel to `Red Dawn' to balance the scale? Thirdly, why should there be a CPB at all---or a National Endowment for the Arts for that matter. What business is it of government to fund `art' that the majority of people would find of questionable value? My opinion is that the federal government should not be paying for entertainment for a minority of citizens. Given the audience of PBS and other NEA outlets, this is nothing more than a welfare for the well-to-do. The art forms favored by the majority of taxpayers (movies, video, various popular musics, etc) don't need tax subsidies, they pay for themselves. So should the rest. Michael Esco Boeing Aerospace ...!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!esco
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (12/13/84)
[] From Michael Esco (ssc-vax!esco): > First, what right does a government-funded agency have to be in the > commercial film industry, investing tax dollars to compete with legitimate > private enterprises? Will the department of agriculture open a chain of > fast-food places next? Second, why is a government-funded agency spending tax > dollars on an overtly political film? Will they be producing the sequel > to `Red Dawn' to balance the scale? Thirdly, why should there be a CPB at > all---or a National Endowment for the Arts for that matter. What business > is it of government to fund `art' that the majority of people would find > of questionable value? The question of government funding of the arts is a reasonable one, and I don't know that I'd disagree with you, except to emphasize that TESTAMENT was only one minor example of this, not the start of a new trend. Turning your indictment around, here's an intriguing question for libertarians: if commercial TV is a fair example of what the free market produces, and PBS a fair sample of "socialism", are you *sure* you prefer to rely on market forces? I've seen a lot of good stuff on PBS, but almost everything on the commercial networks makes my stomach hurt. Oh, well, probably not a fair example. My *real* reason for writing this is to dispute the idea that TESTAMENT is an "overtly political film". Yes, I can infer the opinions of the filmakers on issues of arms control; I don't share them. But, in all fairness, they did not propagandize their (presumed) views in the film (which was excellent). The only explicit statement I saw in the film was that a nuclear war would be a horrible thing, and ought to be avoided. Did I miss something when I went to the bathroom? - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry SOURCE: ST7891
norm@ariel.UUCP (N.ANDREWS) (12/14/84)
> Perhaps if barry studies the matter a little bit more he will discover that today's commercial television is not entirely free market television. There is such a thing as licensed broadcast monopolies. There is no free market for slices of the air wave spectrum. There is the big three networks. Did government (FCC) have anything to do with their size/competitive-advantage/programming? > Also, the free market is not a panacea to the world's or any culture's problems. The free market and certain cultures are incompatible. If a culture embraces non-reason or embraces crap in general, don't expect the free market, to the extent it can survive in such a culture, to provide people with excellence. The market, after all, is only as good as the people that make it. One shouldn't worry so much about the market's influence on television programming as on the society's culture and the philosophies that drive it... > -norm andrews, vax135!ariel!norm
sth@rayssd.UUCP (12/18/84)
Just for public information, the US DOD did provide 50% of the financing
for Red Dawn.....
Steve Hirsch, {allegra, decvax!brunix, ccieng5}!rayssd!sth
Raytheon Co, Submarine Signal Div., Portsmouth, RI