Friday, November 11, 2005

Where is PBS????

I think the government subsidized PBS TV network should pick up Arrested Development. This would head off the mass suicides of “the greatest tragedy to befall mankind, ever.” I think this is the least the American taxpayer could do.

Where else do highly acclaimed shows the 12 people watch get broadcast?

RIP Arrested Development

10 Comments:

Blogger Jeff said...

0 Comments

11:16 AM  
Blogger mkchicago said...

Your point about AD only being watched by "12 people" is well taken. On a business level I can't fault FOX. But this misses a much more important point: I'm one of the 12!

I was one of the millions who bought the Family Guy DVDs thereby helping to bring it back. I have already bought seasons 1 and 2 of AD, so I'm hoping that Capitalism will win out again. If not, there is always PBS. If they can put crap like "Coupling" on they have no reason to reject AD on cultural grounds. My 11 comrades and I will not be denied the Bluths!

Actually I'm surprised by your cynicism towards PBS. Dont you think upper-middle class white folks deserve to have Antiques Road Show produced at taxpayer expense?

9:13 AM  
Blogger Jeff said...

Since the public owns the airwaves, and Congress has seen fit to license use of them for free to commercial media, I think the $400 million a year subsidy to the CPB should be measured against the fair market value of our subsidy to commercial broadcasters, which is GINORMOUS!

12:31 PM  
Blogger mkchicago said...

What does one thing have to do with another? If the Gov. is missing out on collecting rent why does that mean it's entitled to take taxpayer $$ to fund any programs at all? From a taxpayer perspective that's just making a bad situation worse.

Since we're talking about subsidies, why is that that the Childrens Television Workshop gets all the profits from Sesame Street merchandise and the people who pay for it to be on the air (i.e. everybody)don't get a dime of the profits? Its just one long commercial. This rant brought to you by the letters B and S.

1:02 PM  
Blogger Jeff said...

"What does one thing have to do with another? If the Gov. is missing out on collecting rent why does that mean it's entitled to take taxpayer $$ to fund any programs at all?"

From an accounting perspective it's exactly the same thing: free rent to commercial broadcasters = a subsidy in the amount of the fair market value of the lease. Now, if you believe the government shouldn't be subsidizing broadcasters at all, then you would want to both pull the plug on the CPB and start invoicing NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc., which would be a consistent and entirely respectable position. Of course, there's a third position that is so hideously intellectual dishonest and morally bankrupt, that I dare not even mention it here...

1:25 PM  
Blogger mkchicago said...

I wasn't aware that the networks got grant money from the government in addition to free rent.
Also have you considered the possibility that the airwaves did not have much value at the time the networks (CBS, NBC, ABC and Dumont) started using them. Kinda like renting a lot in a bad neighborhood erecting a palace and raising property values in the neighborhood. I'm not saying this was the case, just raising it as a theoretical possibility.
I don't really have a problem with auctioning off the airwaves to the highest bidder. I think 4 ClearChannel networks broadcasting the Rush Limbaugh TV hour would be an improvement over 75% of current offerings. Anything's an improvement over Tony Danza.

1:54 PM  
Blogger Jeff said...

"I wasn't aware that the networks got grant money from the government in addition to free rent."

I don't think they do. My point was that, grant or subsidy, it's the same thing on the balance sheet.

"Also have you considered the possibility that the airwaves did not have much value at the time the networks (CBS, NBC, ABC and Dumont) started using them. Kinda like renting a lot in a bad neighborhood erecting a palace and raising property values in the neighborhood. I'm not saying this was the case, just raising it as a theoretical possibility."

This is a good point. I can see giving them a break on their rent for all the value added, similar to a TIF-type arrangement. However, TIFs don't last forever, and I know very few landlords who would be willing to credit you with the entire increased value of the real estate.

"Anything's an improvement over Tony Danza."

But for your sentence preceding that one, I almost might have agreed.

9:34 AM  
Blogger mkchicago said...

"But for your sentence preceding that one, I almost might have agreed. "
I guess my point was 'be careful what you wish for'.

9:44 AM  
Blogger Germanicu$ said...

TONY DANZA UBER ALLES!

10:26 AM  
Blogger mkchicago said...

You are a sick man Germanicu$.

10:32 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home