Why? ... I just think it is naive to think that news broadcasting funded purely by corporate interests is somehow more neutral than news broadcasting funded purely by federal interests.
There is a difference between the two, one of which has more potential for abuse than the other.
One is the exertion of the power of force, and one is not. It's less of a question of neutrality. Of course any news station, radio program, or newspaper is going to be friendly and responsive to whoever holds its purse strings. But there's a huge difference between a news service that has to produce a product of high quality enough that others want to buy, and a government funded news service whose motivations to produce a product are unrelated to quality.
While either may have equal potential for abuse, I think the consequences of that abuse are more likely to be worse with government sponsored news.
You are kidding right? Either one has equal potential for abuse.
Thus, the argument is that voluntarily funded news broadcasting is better than involuntarily funded news broadcasting. There is a difference between the two, one of which has more potential for abuse than the other.
Every once in a while, I have to step back and remember that I take for granted some presuppositions that others don't. Presuppositions: The government has the power to use force over others to make them do things. This is more
power than simply having to persuade others to do things. The more power you possess, the more potential there is for abuse. This is then why a large number of Americans are philosophically against, for example, government subsidized news.
To me, the most interesting aspect of this discussion is how it reveals what might be the most significant, grass roots-level ideological divide in 21st century America: who do you trust more? The market or the government?
Although, it's pretty clear that the American government was built around the ideology of trusting government power less. Those guys weren't reading John Milton, Adam Smith, Samuel Rutherford, John Locke, Charles de Montesquieu, and William Blackstone by accident.
Those are statements of ideology.
Just seems to make sense: a corporate stooge faces competition from other corporations; a government stooge will seek to eliminate competition. . . . But taken to extremes, the potential for damage by newsmedia sponsored by corporate interests is less than that sponsored by government interests. The power of the market vs the power of the gun.
Yes, they are. The question of whether we're "cool" with our government subsidizing the news is a question of ideology that John Locke would have answered one way and Robert Filmer would have answered the opposite way. So why is it that referring to statements of political ideology perturbs some people? This is a question of what the government should or shouldn't do.
And I am not so much interested in the corporate vs. government issue in this thread. I am more interested in the principle of benevolence that has expressed itself both corporately and federally in public broadcasting funding for years. I can't take these few conservatives pleas to cut the federal side of this benevolence very seriously. Yeah, it costs a few hundred million dollars a year. But I doubt someone like Palin would bat an eye at spending the same amount of money in one day in Iraq.
Actually, I think the argument at this point is that we all need to band together to cut government spending of every kind, benevolent spending, military spending, criminal spending, pork spending, you name it, it's high time we cut down. Read a couple articles about what the last couple bailouts have been doing to the federal national debt. It's like the taxpayers have been forced to own a large credit card, the credit limit has been overdrawn long ago, and yet somehow the government is still using that same damn credit card. So when questions of funding even little things like NPR, David Wojnarowicz, or other more extravagant acts of financial whimsy arise, Americans are starting to find it exasperating.
Have the arts ever really needed to be funded by the government? Some of us say no.