Flick Harrison on Thu, 9 Apr 2009 06:10:34 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> Google dubbed internet parasite by WSJ editor |
Chad, > Can you please elaborate on this point? (btw I like your art on your site.) I hope this isn't too off-topic for nettime. The conservative anti-public-broadcasting argument, in Canada at least, goes like this: Tax dollars are taken from business, which makes it harder for them to compete / survive. Tax dollars also come out of consumer pockets, so they have less to spend. This hurts business too. In this tougher environment, public broadcasting (i.e. the CBC) is an unfair competitor against private broadcasting. The public system also sucks ad revenue out of the private sector. CBC gets much of its budget, for instance, through advertising on the hockey games. It gets the rights to the games again through unfair advantage. Public broadcasting also reflects the bias of the ruling party, which gives them an unfair advantage. The ruling party, and therefore public broadcasting, is biased against business (to put it mildly). In this biased, unfair atmosphere, the public is fooled into being anti-business as well. The ruling party can therefore never be dislodged by any pro-business party who will eliminate public broadcasting. Public broadcasting, therefore, is an enemy of democracy, business, and every right-thinking person. *http://tinyurl.com/corjl2 *It's a spurious argument because it starts from the premise that public broadcasting cannot have any value and therefore the only route through the problem is the one that makes things better for private broadcasting, and therefore all private business. The idea that public broadcasting might have a value to offset even the perceived damage to business is impossible to accept because in conservative eyes, all government programs are doomed at best (with the obvious exceptions of the military and police, which are infallible). The argument also fails because it insists that the funding for public broadcasting automatically biases the broadcaster in favour of the funder, i.e. the ruling party, but it denies absolutely the possibility of pro-business bias in private-sector broadcasting. This is especially wrong-headed because it ignores the arms-length nature of public funding, and the non-arms-length style of corporate decision-making, which would seem to suggest the opposite to be the case. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org