Give every citizen a $100 voucher which they can direct to the studio, station, or network of their choice. Even people who spend most of their time watching lowbrow pop shows would probably recognize that those shows are more useful as anesthesia than as art, and direct their vouchers at more interesting projects.

This presupposes that the masses know what they want to watch, a proposition for which there isn't all that much evidence. People's tastes in entertainment are shaped by what they are given, which is all the more reason to prevent broadcasting from getting into the hands of people (advertisers) who have a vested interest in the degradation of popular taste and in making people stupider and easier to please.

More seriously, the BBC ain't what it was, but I don't think anybody, even now, could accuse it of experimenting less than commercial channels, or of not paying attention to feedback (IMO, part of the problem with the BBC is that it spends too much time worrying about short-term audience ratings).

One of the interesting things about the media industry is how badly the normal toolkit of economics fits ...

No offense to the Brits here, but of the three countries I know something about - the Uk, France, and the US - the US looks to have the best television in the world. I'm not talking per hour on the air, because obviously the US with its (two? three?) hundred plus channels will get slammed. But density doesn't matter, when the viewer can pick and choose, as long as there's *something* on *somewhere*. And usually in the U.S. there is. For some reason the American intelligentsia (is that an oxymoron?) feel the need to diss their own television, when the best, most dynamic shows are made in the US, and there's no comparision. Think "Six Feet Under" or (am I showing I have children?) "Dexter's Laboratory."

I'm not saying you have to go the free-market route, but the free-market route hasn't done such a bad job in the U.S. Really. (Although I do hate them commercials...)

As I understand it, the basic problem is that producing a television program is expensive -- you need sets, actors and expensive equipment and so on to record and broadcast the program. So you need some source of serious money to finance its production, whether from advertisers or the government.

If the cost of producing a show were to fall enough, then we could rely on volunteers to produce the interesting "content" for us. An expert is pretty much guaranteed to find his subject fascinating, and if you make it cheap for him to share odds are he will. I mean, we're probably just a few years away from people being able to synthesize high-quality video on their personal computers. At that point, I expect people to start producing their own web-based television programs. (Shorts are already ubiquitous; the technology just neeeds to get a bit better to support feature-length things.)

We know this already works. Look at the huge amounts of fan-fiction on the net. Look at webcomics. Look at machinima (the use of video-game 3D engines to create animated shorts). Look at open-source software. People want to create interesting stuff. If we make it cheap enough for them to do so easily, they will. That gets you the diversity you need, and then Google will let you find the stuff matched to your own tastes. This will mean the deprofessionalization of art, but frankly who cares besides the professional artists and the media conglomerates?

As Brad has pointed out before, digital information looks sneakingly like a public good, in general.

However, while moving TV to a BBC-like model is a "fun" comparison, I think there are better ways. Right now, on sattellite TV, you can order channels one at a time. Cable operaters already sell pay-per-view programming and offer some choice of channels, there is no technical reason why they can't offer their customers more choice as to what they pay for.

This kind of business model can and will become more common. Right now, some cable channels get more revenue from subscription fees than advertisements. Expect this trend to continue, and one day some channels may be completely ad-free. PVRs will no doubt increase their number.

When you do this, the viewer (rather than the advertiser) is the customer, and programming quality increases. In other words, yeah, you pay more, but it isn't a monopoly provider who gets to decide how the money is spent.

But you people already know all this... you're smart economists.

Andrew: A lot of this is local taste. Every time I've been in a hotel in the States, I've been faced with about a hundred channels and quite literally *nothing* I remotely wanted to watch. Unless the WWF was on, I like that.

Neel: doubt it. All the technology in the world couldn't teach Madonna to act, so what hope is there for the rest of us?

“This presupposes that the masses know what they want to watch, a proposition for which there isn't all that much evidence. People's tastes in entertainment are shaped by what they are given, which is all the more reason to prevent broadcasting from getting into the hands of people (advertisers) who have a vested interest in the degradation of popular taste and in making people stupider and easier to please.”

It seems that someone is tempted to offer his services as a benevolent dictator. However, most of us feel far more comfortable with the notion that it’s best that the common citizens make these sort of decisions for themselves. Too much suffering has already resulted from the desire of socialist leaders who believe that the hoi polloi must be protected from the machinations of the alleged despicable capitalist establishment.

More semi-seriously, one answer to Brad's question would be the solution actually put in place at the BBC: that the Corporation maintain its existence as a funding body, but that the majority of entertainment programs are made by independent production companies. Obviously, two caveats to this model:

a) Presumably on this basis, Ronald Coase would say that there is no meaningful government involvement in television in the UK

b) IMO, the quality of the programmes has gone right down the bloody drain ever since they started doing it.

David wrote:

>>It seems that someone is tempted to offer his services as a benevolent dictator. However, most of us feel far more comfortable with the notion that it’s best that the common citizens make these sort of decisions for themselves. Too much suffering has already resulted from the desire of socialist leaders who believe that the hoi polloi must be protected from the machinations of the alleged despicable capitalist establishment. <<

Exactly how much suffering has been inflicted by the existence of the BBC, David? I mean, "Blake's Seven" was pretty bad, but I wouldn't exactly describe it as causing suffering.

“Exactly how much suffering has been inflicted by the existence of the BBC, David? I mean, "Blake's Seven" was pretty bad, but I wouldn't exactly describe it as causing suffering.”

I don’t really have much of a problem with a government owned television network. PBS served a legitimate purpose for quite some time. I even sent them a number of financial donations. The government’s offering, though, should never be the only game in town. I much prefer the situation in the United States where PBS is compelled with numerous private enterprise networks.

Also, I am an ex-Catholic who still finds value in the works of Thomas Aquinas. The so-called angelic doctor warned that the masses will never be inclined toward higher intellectual fare. Most prefer the National Inquirer, People magazine, and other such junk. I long ago realized that it’s best not to become bitter and enraged at this harsh fact of life.

Sorry about that. The following sentence "I much prefer the situation in the United States where PBS is compelled with numerous private enterprise networks" should read "...where PBS is compelled to compete with numerous private enterprise networks."

Dsquared:

The mere fact that you are wasting your time with the rest of us posting here would seem to indicate that any broadcaster that tried to tailor it's offering to your tastes would have the half life of Mendelevium...

That said, there is a fair amount of good stuff on US tv, if you know where to look... (I myself have become a rabid fan of the Food network, particularly Alton Brown's geek cooking show "Good Eats"...)

Brad DeLong mystifies with;

>>...experimentation and feedback are processes that markets are pretty good at. And we badly need to figure out alternative non-market ways of generating them...<<

First, why? Second, Good Luck!

BTW, I find the PBS attitude of, "We're too good to run advertisements on our network, but we're not to proud to whine for money several times a year", particularly amusing in light of the programs they run in the intervals of their begathons. Mostly television fare that originated on commercial networks. Last one I saw was clips from Frank Sinatra's program on CBS, circa 1957.

Talk about a non-problem in search of a solution! If desired electronic entertainment can no longer be delivered with commercials that advertisers are willing to pay for, then such entertainment will migrate exclusively to distribution channels, like cable or satellite, where viewers can be individually charged for what they wish to watch, or, as was suggested above, extremely low cost producers will provide content for free to those people unwilling to pay individual charges. What a concept! People actually deciding what they desire to pay money for! Will wonders never cease! Of course, somebody might object on the basis of there being a "right" to freely view young airheads risk STDs while serially offering themselves to a young, pretty, or rich, bachelor or bachelorette, or a right to freely peruse gasbags like Bill Moyers, but then Moyers could get a blog at considerably less cost.

I must be candid but what exactly is dishonorable about asking people's contributions for a good cause, or even simply for a good product / service? Does the Salvation Army spur similar feelings with you?

There is a huge difference between member contributions and advertisement. In the former, you sell airtime to the audience, in the latter to a third party. The former, whenever technically possible, sounds to me as more efficient.

And if PBS was running ads, well, it just wouldn't be PBS anymore. In Belgium, as soon as the public station (RTBF) started to make money off advertisement, it became extremely difficult to distinguish its programs from those of privately-owned stations. This is a bit of a mistery to me, but that's how it works.

I hope for the day when I can choose precisely which channels to pay for on a fee per channel basis rather than being given only bundled choices. I decided against paying for the package that includes both CNN and Fox News concluding that they canceled each other out but did purchase the package that includes BBC America which regrettably runs "Changing Rooms" about 10x daily.

Nothing dishonorable at all Jean-Phillippe, although it would be preferable that PBS exist solely on voluntary contributions. The irony is in having a broadcast entity which prominently mentions that it does not subject viewers to commercials during it's pledge drives, while entertaining people with material that was originally made possible via the selling of commercial spots to advertisers. The mystery you speak of really isn't all that mysterious. If one hopes to generate income through advertisements, one must produce material with substantial mass appeal to those who don't mind the interruptions in return for free fare, and who are of a demographic group that is attractive to advertisers. If one is generating revenue solely from voluntary contributions, either on a pay-per view basis, or through pledge drives, one can tailor material more narrowly, and the content itself is produced differently when it will be viewed in an uninterrupted fashion. When revenues are obtained through taxes collected via state power, one need only satisfy the whims of those few regulators who are delegated power by elected representatives.

The wonderful thing about this thread is that the quality of the BBC's output through the years does all my arguing for me.

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

“In Belgium, as soon as the public station (RTBF) started to make money off advertisement, it became extremely difficult to distinguish its programs from those of privately-owned stations. This is a bit of a mistery to me, but that's how it works.”

Somebody obviously needs to study economics 101. Ever heard of the old saying “He who pays the piper, gets to choose the tune?” Also, “money talks and bullsh_t walks!”

Daniel: Don't doubt it. Go to www.machinima.com, and look at this stuff starting to come together right now.

“For some reason the American intelligentsia (is that an oxymoron?) feel the need to diss their own television, when the best, most dynamic shows are made in the US, and there's no comparision.”

Television in the United States is essentially what one chooses it to be. One merely needs to possess sufficient affluence to pay (usually around $30.00 a month) for basic cable. The rest is up to you. I personally can opt for A&E, History Channel, C-Span, CNN, CNBC, Food Channel, Brad DeLong’s favorite, Fox Network, among many others. Tonight, for instance, I will view the one hour documentary special on CNBC concerning the life of Peter Drucker. Nonetheless, I could still make a last minute decision to switch to either Superboy or the Beverly Hillbillies.

Regarding bundling of channels:

US cable operators are now required to sell you
individual channels, without requiring
you to buy them in a bundle. The new rule
took effect in October 2002.

From the legislation, 47 USC Sec. 543:

"A cable operator may not require the subscription to any tier
other than the basic service tier required by paragraph (7) as
a condition of access to video programming offered on a per channel or per
program basis."

The cable operators just don't have
to let you know about this, so they
don't.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2002/tc2002116_0167.htm

From "Arthur" to Alan Alda to Bill Moyers and "Now" to British comedy and "Coupling," we greatly enjoy and help out PBS.

I am concerned at the growing concentration of ownership of commercial television channels.

>> BTW, I find the PBS attitude of, "We're too good to run advertisements on our network, but we're not to proud to whine for money several times a year", particularly amusing in light of the programs they run in the intervals of their begathons <<

And don't forget all the advertisements they run now during their regular programming.

Tut tut tut....

Kids and I still like "Arthur." Charlie Rose, Nature, Nova, Frontline, Clifford [big big big red Clifford], Now, BBC News, Time Goes By, Yes Minister, Masterpiece Theater, and "Arthur."

Gripe away boyos, we will still watch PBS and hope for more such.

>>Somebody obviously needs to study economics 101.<<

You're welcome to attend my classes as long as you don't act like you sometimes do here. Of course, this is a policy I have "regardless of the scumbag's skin color."

>>Ever heard of the old saying “He who pays the piper, gets to choose the tune?” Also, “money talks and bullsh_t walks!”<<

Hmmm... Even I wouldn't be so blunt in stating that all that advertising-supported media put out is chosen by corporations. It's interesting you put it this way given your line on the "liberal bias" of media.

Happy new year to Professor DeLong and all commenters on this blog. May this blog in 2003 stay as informative, if not more, than it's been in 2002.

Jean-Philippe, that's an interesting, and perhaps Freudian, slip; your taking my "amusing" and reading it as "dishonorable". Will Allen is correct.

As is Jim Glass, PBS does run commercials during its programming now. Very tastefully, of course.

But the begathons ARE commercials, for the stations themselves.

Patrick wrote:

>>BTW, I find the PBS attitude of, "We're too good to run advertisements on our network, but we're not to proud to whine for money several times a year", particularly amusing in light of the programs they run in the intervals of their begathons.<<

It's the part that says: "But [PBS is not] to[o] proud to whine for money several times a year" that suggested to me that you think there is something whiney (i.e. somehow dishonorable) to ask for pledges of support. If not, would you please clarify?

Otherwise, I also thought Will Allen's comment made a lot of sense. I would add, however, that over time people's tastes are defined by the crapp they see on most commercial stations. (I think this point was made above by someone else.)

For example: to appreciate real news, you have got to have been exposed to informative news for a while otherwise it's impossible to relate to and put these news in context. On some channels, there simply are no news anymore, it's just entertainment with a "news" template.

And I'm not even talking about foreign news, just the most basic economic, political and community type of news, with which a worrying proportion Americans simply don't have any contact with. At this point, I am worried that if they were exposed to that kind of news, they simply would have no meaningful understanding about it. These people have become, in essence, news illiterate. Of course, in a broader perspective, this has to do with education as well.

And in fact, since the PBS has started running ads and taking money from corporations there have been many allegations, some of which were quite credible, that it has effected both their programming decisions and the creative process for the programs they comission.

It's really not rocket science - if advertisers pay, they call the shots. Whoever controls the money flow to the network in question will be catered to. Those people will generally get programming that is acceptable to them, more or less.

Why is this difficult?

Further arguing that advertiser paid TV is somehow good and that it is a result of the "common man" making decisions is mind boggling.

I'm surprised that Jean-Philippe needs further clarification. But, I'll go the extra mile; "amusing" (my description) is not a synonym for "dishonorable".

Is it dishonorable to whine? I would think that too strong, but I suppose reasonable people could disagree about that. However, as a businessman, I'm hardly going to be offended by someone trying to sell their product.

My concept of dishonor is usually reserved for something like desertion on a battlefield, a father abandoning his family, scholars inventing "facts" to gain adulation from ideologues, or public school teachers' unions using poor, inner-city, school kids as hostages for pay raises. All of which seem well beyond, "whining".

Which takes us back to the irony of a "public" television station encouraging their viewers, during lengthy commercials of their own, to send them money so they can avoid having to watch "private" broadcasts with all those icky commercial interruptions. Which parfait is topped off with the (Hi, dsquared) cherry of programming originally shown on CBS.

You do find that amusing, no?

Whatever the achievements or failings of the BBC as a PBS, it seems to me instructive that it attracts the unsolicited defence of so many people around the world, who regularly listen to the World Service on radio or post on the Net message boards even when unable to access the TV channels. How come? Why are the commercial channels in Britain apparently unable to sustain such loyal audiences?

The suggestion above that the BBC might take on a commissioning role and contract out production has already been taken on board although there is scope for debate about whether the extent of outsourcing might be greater or more varied. Complaints are routinely made about political or national bias. That goes with the territory but the broad variety of the complainants across the political spectrum does suggest a balance of a kind in BBC output.

Its news archives are a personally valued way of checking news history, at least as an early port of call and especially items on past political scandals which otherwise have a notable tendency to get hacked off the Net. I retain a collection on file to serve as a readily accessible resource and for good reason - one of the BBC's own web pages with an embarrassing news report from the past suddenly became inaccessible so I emailed in and it was restored.

PBS may be all manner of creature, but it is the only network where a Bill Moyers could survive. The right complained for years about a liberal bias by the television networks in news programs. The tactic has worked quite well.

I now find a decided conservative network bias. PBS also show such a bias, but less so than the rest and so there is a Bill Moyers presence. There is increasing concentration of ownership in the media, and so we need to maintain the independence of a PBS as best we can.

Gee, I don't like what's on TV. We need more taxes and bigger government! Hooray!

Exactly how much of our taxes goes to maintain PBS? Exactly how much bigger have our private contributions to PBS made government?

>Gee, I don't like what's on TV. We need more taxes and bigger government! Hooray!

Fact is, I don't much like what's on TV either, whether BBC or not, and therefore don't watch much. A wide consensus is that the quality of TV in Britain has deteriorated on trend over the last decade or so, just possibly because the extent of choice has increased. Historic high points in TV drama, instanced by series like: I, Claudius (BBC), based on the novels by Robert Graves, and: Jewel in the Crown (commercial channel), based on Paul Scott's novels, are deep history now. Stats show the average number of hours spent watching TV each week at about 34 hours seems to have fallen by an hour or so in recent years but then Brits were among the avid TV watchers anywhere. On the ratings charts, the BBC attracts more viewers overall.

The challenging economics question is whether the model of a competitive market in broadcasting in Steiner's seminal paper: "Program patterns and Preferences, and the Workability of Competition in Radio Boadcasting" in QJE 1952 stands up against the unfolding reality of competition - sorry but I can't locate the paper on the web.

By reports, the BBC is spending tens of millions on its website - I've seen UKP 100 million mentioned - when that is open to any unpaying visitors from around the world without charge. The news pages start at: http://news.bbc/co.uk but there is much more.

Perhaps the instructive comparison is that the UK government is spending UKP 1 billion (yes) on developing and maintaining websites for all UK government departments and agencies. Within the last few days an independent consultancy has reported comparatively little use is made of the sites.

Wasn't the BBC Orwell's model for the state in "1984"? If it looked anything like that from the inside back then, it's hard to imagine what a mess it is now.

And this seems off target: "It's really not rocket science - if advertisers pay, they call the shots." To be sure, if P&G has been advertising on a show that goes wildly off into controversial territory, it can pull its ads, but that's happened rarely in the past. Advertisers want to run ads on shows that people watch . . . . . . and in the age of media fragmentation, national audiences (where you can advertise a national product) have become a scarce and valuable commodity.

>>Why are the commercial channels in Britain apparently unable to sustain such loyal audiences?<<

I really don't know. I could make a reasonable argument, I think, that Granada Television, circa 1968, was the best broadcasting organisation that has ever existed (anyone like the album "Live from Folsom Prison" by Johnny Cash? Brought to you by a bunch of Mancunians who thought it would be a good idea for a tea-time special in Warrington).

I think it's an effect of the rabid competition of the UK media market (the most competitive in the world). If you need to deliver viewers *right now*, then one solution is to go for sensation. That's a strategy which works, but with diminishing returns.

Dsquared: You're going to have to be a bit more rigorous when you write that "People's tastes in entertainment are shaped by what they are given." What exactly does this mean in real terms? That groundbreaking shows (Six Feet Under? -- ha ha pun -- Pro wrestling? MTV videos? The PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer?) will never find an audience? Well, obviously not, since all of those have experienced success and found an audience. So what exactly do you mean? That you don't like what's on so the government should get involved?

Will Allen is dead on: talk about a non-problem in search of an intrusive new gov't program.

JT: What are you saying? That every program on TV is groundbreaking and new? That there are literally no such things as knock-off copies of cop shows, docusoaps, reality elimination shows?? See how easy it is to misread people?

I'm saying, with decent evidence from casual empiricism, that there is positive feedback between what people watch and what they want to watch, and that, combined with fairly unobjectionable stylised facts about the media industry (short term outlook leading to sensationalism, ice-cream cart models of differentiation, etc), this would suggest that we could all have better programs and become better people if someone exercised a bit of Reithian control over the broadcasting industry. Unlike yourself and Will, but like David T, I'm not a cultural relativist; I believe that some works are more valuable than others, and that it is a legitimate purpose of society to promote what is best about itself.

In any case, as I say above, the quality of the BBC's output does my arguing for me. To claim that "this is a non-problem in seach of an intrusive new government program" is to make a similar mistake to the one Paul Samuelson made about lighthouses.

No, I'm not denying the repetitiveness of many TV shows, but I provided evidence that your initial statement was flatly fallacious. Can we agree on the following: Programmers and viewers exist in a feedback loop.

You're assumption that I'm a cultural relativist is wrong. I deplore much of what is on TV and I disapprove of quite a bit of the entertainment industry's programming efforts (esp the violence) but I think we differ on the ability of government to perform any sort of useful function in the equation. As far as I can tell, government is barely able to perform mundane municipal tasks like having the garbage collected. Policing crime is almost beyond it. I think your belief that government -- which has shown at all levels an inability to do anything efficiently and well -- is delusional (and I don't mean this as a personal insult in any way). If one thinks of the entertainment industry as a fast-changing industry with constant new-product introductions, then the government would appear to be uniquely ill-suited for any role in it.

dsquared, I happen to agree with you that some works are better than others, I simply contend that if you feel strongly that worthwhile projects are being left unproduced, it is then incumbent upon you to convince others to voluntarily pay for what you believe to be worthwhile. If you, or others, are unwilling to take this task on, or are unsuccessful in convincing others to particiapte in voluntary exchange, it does not legitimately confer upon you, or even a majority, the right to force others to pay for something that they would rather not have, and that cannot be reasonably shown to be essential to the continued function of society. The very existence of the medium that you and I use to communicate suggests that revenues obtained by state coercion are uneeded for the exchange of ideas required by a functioning society.

>>but I provided evidence that your initial statement was flatly fallacious<<

I'll forgive you for not reading my weblog this once :).

Let you in on a secret; this post was cribbed out of a New Year's Eve joke post on my weblog. I've been making a few similarly exaggerated statements up and down this thread. In any case, "people like what they get" does not imply "people only like what they have seen before". But woteva.

>>I think we differ on the ability of government to perform any sort of useful function in the equation<<

I'm repeating myself. The question of whether government-owned corporations can provide a useful function is simply not one that is up for debate. The BBC is there. Deal with it.

>>If one thinks of the entertainment industry as a fast-changing industry with constant new-product introductions, then the government would appear to be uniquely ill-suited for any role in it.<<

You're being too constrained in your view of "government". As I say, the BBC acts mainly as a funding body these days, commissioning independent producers. And even back in the day when it did everything itself, it produced some of the most innovative television there has ever been anywhere.

Go, on, admit it. "Monty Python's Flying Circus" was brought to you by a state broadcasting system. And "Quatermass" came courtesy of a state monopoly!

More support for the free-ride-off-the-fans argument, courtesy Slashdot:

http://homepage.mac.com/starshipexeter/

I expect this sort of thing to become much more common over they next few years. The Internet makes distribution cheap, and PCs make production cheap.

"And this seems off target: "It's really not rocket science - if advertisers pay, they call the shots." To be sure, if P&G has been advertising on a show that goes wildly off into controversial territory, it can pull its ads, but that's happened rarely in the past. Advertisers want to run ads on shows that people watch . . . . . . and in the age of media fragmentation, national audiences (where you can advertise a national product) have become a scarce and valuable commodity."

As has been noted with regard to advertiser control over news media - it's not the active intervention that matters - it's the day to day decisions about what programs will not offend advertisers and which will find the most viewers at the same time. It's about the things you will never see, nor ever hear because of fear of giving offense to those who pay the bills. Again, why is that hard to understand? When I'm at work, or when I've consulted, I'm very careful not to produce work that would offend those who pay my salary or fees.

Dsquared: Good response. I have an objection but first of all I think your point about government acting as a funding body and as the actual producer of a service (such as programming) is very valid and thought provoking. As it's thought-provoking, I promise to think about it as clearly as I can. :)

One disagreement: you write that state-sponsored BBC programming brought us excellent programming, something I readily admit (although I am ashamed to say I have never heard of "Quatermass" -- what is it?). The debate is about whether state intervention would stimulate such programming -- regarded as excellent by the general public, not a narrow interest group -- or not and the answer is we have no way of knowing. Perhaps an unfettered laissez faire broadcasting system in the the 1960s UK would have provided many more such shows, or maybe it would have produced none at all. It's all hypothetical, so the ideological prisms through which we view the issue take on great importance.

Ian Welsh's comment about advertisers influence on programming is well-taken but keep in mind that advertisers are in fact enforcing community standards by their occasional objections to such programming. Are such community standards objectionable? I think not. As an example, I believe you should pick a TV show that is objectionable to oneself. Take pro wrestling -- I find it odious and I bet Ian does, too -- which receives business from a very restricted set of advertisers. How do you feel about it's commercial prospects being limited by such a situation? How about an even more objectionable type of programming?

There's more to it than that. You're less likely to say something extremely critical (or mildly critical) of an advertiser's business (generally or specifically) if that advertiser is a major spender with your network.

It's just that simple.

an Welsh's comment about advertisers influence on programming is well-taken but keep in mind that advertisers are in fact enforcing community standards by their occasional objections to such programming.

They don't care about community standards, they just avoid controversy. Different thing.

surprisingly i'm shocked and horrified... you do realise that this is the stereotypical leftist discussion? "what programming that people don't like, but should, should be produced with money stolen from the people?"

hello??

people reading this blog are unlikely to like mass market programming, as you're all part of a very tiny population. No one really cares what you want to watch, as you're a small market, generally opposed to consumerism, capitalism, and consumption (except for volvos, hemp products, etc), and you're pretty set in your ways. So you have to steal to get what you want.

jps can be excused his remarks since he doesn't speak english as a first language, and comes from a different culture, but of course everyone else understands why pbs shouldn't be proud of shilling for donations (jps: it's a wasp thing, that kind of thing just isn't done... plus its so incredibly hypocritical... but you're the local euro that'll get in a fight with DT, just cause you're a euro... good to see that you've learned from chirac!)

Why are we even discussing a current role for the government? This is definitely one service that is no longer justified. Every year, it becomes increasingly more difficult to argue for the public underwriting of a TV or radio network. I strongly believed in PBS in the good old days when there were no more than a handful of available stations. The bottom line is that today virtually anybody who can afford around $30 a month can find what they are looking for on TV. Most of us have more than enough channels to choose from.

I also feel the same way about the post office. The United States definitely needed the government to handle our past mailing needs. This is no longer the case, and now it’s time to pull the plug.

um.

i'm a little late but i couldn't help but notice that everyone seems to think the bbc is run by the british government. it isn't, it's chartered by the crown, the government can't touch its money, and the only involvement the govenment has is renewing the charter every 12 years. so it's not really state run in the sense that most people have of state run. plus, the bbc model would be really hard to do in the us, since we don't have a crown.

Jason: avoiding controversy vs community standards. I don't see a difference. You'll have to actually make the argument instead of simply asserting the difference.

>>I also feel the same way about the post office. The United States definitely needed the government to handle our past mailing needs. This is no longer the case, and now it’s time to pull the plug.<<

Why? Because it offers a very decent service at between a 1/3 and a 10th of the price of private companies? Without their public competition to the private post oligopoly, I can't begin to imagine how much we'd be paying to send our mail, especially in the case of anything else than a standard 1st class letter.

“Without their public competition to the private post oligopoly”

What planet do you reside on? The actual situation is exactly the opposite.

“Why? Because it offers a very decent service at between a 1/3 and a 10th of the price of private companies?”

“I can't begin to imagine how much we'd be paying to send our mail, especially in the case of anything else than a standard 1st class letter.”

I am appalled by the fact that you supposedly have an advanced degree behind your name in economics. Americans pay for their postal service in two ways: taxes and direct payment for postage. You seem to prefer focussing on the latter method of payment while ignoring the first. Did you professors permit such sloppy work in their respective classrooms? Government is innately less efficient than the private sector. A truly competitive postal environment is certain to bring down the overall prices to the end user.

Jason: avoiding controversy vs community standards. I don't see a difference. You'll have to actually make the argument instead of simply asserting the difference.

Well, if you *insist*. Say there's a community composed of 90% religion A & 10% religion B. Would you say a television show saying shocking things about religion B "violates community standards?" It'd just get really vocal opposition from religion B ("controversy"), and probably wouldn't get funded.

I don't think there's a real definition of community standards outside of obscenity contexts, anyway.

Oh, and uh, David? You know the postal service has been raising rates to avoid using any tax revenue for the last decade at least, right? It's not entirely clear whether or not the market for extremely cheap mail (34 cent letters) doesn't suffer from public utility-style problems with competition, either.

The United States Post Office is a money losing operation. Thus, the taxpayers must pick up a substantial part of its operating costs. A private enterprise operation could probably cut costs dramatically. Of course, this is all hypothetical because the U.S. Post Office is a sacred political cow that is not going to compete with the private sector anytime in the near future.

What can we do? The more we use e-mail, the quicker this government bureaucracy will be phased out of existence. In other words, it’s all up to Brad DeLong! The very fact that we are corresponding on his website without employing the services of the U.S. Post Office is slowly, but most assuredly, putting them out of business.