Today, I attended a gathering in which a person I was speaking with a friend noted that there needs to be more "NPR-like" news/educational programs on the radio and T.V. rather than the reality television shows that are always popping up on the boob-tube. Though I agreed that we need less of this filth T.V., I had to disagree with my friend and note that networks are looking at the numbers, ad revenues and the demands of the public rather than what a select few want. I further pointed out that there are ample amounts of T.V. networks on the cable/satellite spectrum to satisfy this thirst for knowledge. Right know, If I look through my Dish Channel lineup, I have 12 news/information channels (Ranging from CNN - FOX NEWS), 17 educational/learning channels (Animal Planet to Wisdom T.V.) as well as some 14 public interest channels (BYUTV to University of Washington TV) to choose from without someone having to promote more stations like NPR.
No matter what people might say, the right to choose(Milton and Rose Friedman version) is probably one of the best things that our capitalistic system has to offer. Now my friend has every right to demand that more of these programs be put on TV and hope to better our society through the creation of more "NPR like" networks but it is also the right of this nation to have a say in what goes on TV. It'd be nice to have less Paris Hilton, Super-Nanny, Big Brother 106 on TV and more Documentaries, In-Depth News-shows as well as C-SPAN. Fortunately, there is a simple answer to this, which is for them to use their remote control to turn the television to the networks of their choice and let the chips fall where they will.
Well, this brief look into my Saturday outing is a small snippet of a much larger debate that is occurring in the halls of Congress over the US citizenry providing a $500 million subsidy to NPR and PBS, who brings in well over $2.5 billion every year. Amongst the most vocal opponents of these costly expenditures which hand money over to an entity that can survive without such a crutch is the folks over at the CATO Institute. Well, in the opinion section of today's edition of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Bill Steigerwald has a wonderful Q&A with David Boaz, Executive Vice-President of the CATO Institute, about ending such an unnecessary government handout. While I'll let you read the full interview, I wanted to give you a brief sample of the interview:
Q: What's the moral argument for defunding NPR and PBS?I'd have to say that Boaz hit it on the nail-head with this argument , it's about time that the folks in D.C. gets the drift of Boaz and a large section of the American public who feel that it's time to let the highly profitable NPR/PBS fly on their own. This money could be sent back to the people or put it towards our national defense or boarder security rather than this silly boondoggle that few people approve of.
A: It is that taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize news and opinions. Thomas Jefferson said this 200 years ago. I believe the quote was, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." When you give taxpayers' money to ideas, it's very similar to giving taxpayers' money to religion. We made a decision in this country: We're going to have freedom of religion, but we're not going to have taxpayers forced to support religions they may not agree with. Similarly, it's a moral objection that taxpayers should not be forced to contribute money to the propagation of opinions they disagree with.
No comments:
Post a Comment