Previous message: "Ex-PBS and FCC chiefs want $18 billion new agency, WSJ says" http://www.politechbot.com/p-02296.html ********** Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 12:08:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Platt <cpat_private> To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> Cc: <politechat_private> Subject: Re: FC: Ex-PBS and FCC chiefs want $18 billion new agency, WSJ sa In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010723153116.02531e40at_private> No doubt many "worthy" groups would eagerly embrace funding for their web sites. I just hope that everyone looks ahead to the next step, after the funding is received. Generally, this will involve some kind of control, either overt or covert. You don't get money for nothing, from the federal government. At the very least, groups receiving "content grants" will have to follow disability access guidelines. Banner ads for worthy causes such as D.A.R.E. may be mandatory. Pornography, of course, may be taboo. Online text advocating the overthrow of whatever government happens to be in power may be unwelcome. PBS has suffered relatively little of this kind of thing, but its charter was established in very different times. We live in the era when scripts for sitcoms were evaluated to determine whether they included the right spin on issues such as drugs. When you have a government big enough to give you all you want, it will be big enough to take it all away. This Goldwater aphorism cannot be repeated often enough. ********** Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 19:26:17 -0400 From: "Rick G. Karr" <neuunitat_private> Organization: neuUNIT(U.S.) To: declanat_private Subject: Re: FC: Ex-PBS and FCC chiefs want $18 billion new agency, WSJ says Declan -- I have to take exception to your dismissal of the Grossman/Minow proposal -- at least WRT one type of online content. You wrote: > [S]etting up a web server with a large hard drive is hardly expensive. > If people really want content online, the market will respond by producing > it. We don't have $18 billion federal book, magazine or newspaper projects, > but somehow we see splendid writing nonetheless. Yeah, hardware's cheap. But reporting the news ain't. (Nor is bandwidth -- but that's another conversation.) While there isn't much _profit_ to be made in general-interest news, there is a significant _public good_ in deep, broad and smart reporting. You're correct to point out that the market is pretty good at generating that in the print media -- Tony Ridder and his staff-slashing ilk notwithstanding. But it's not so good at providing quality _broadcast_ news. The network TV news divisions are a joke. MSNBC, Fox and CNN offer us blipvert summaries in lieu of full stories, alongside hours of spin reflecting the priorities of each outlet's corporate parent. In my own medium, deregulation has resulted in the near-complete abandonment of news and public affairs programming on commercial frequencies. Even mighty CBS Radio News is barely there anymore. Only NPR, PRI and what's left of Pacifica do radio news with any depth or breadth these days. Sure, we've largely weaned ourselves from CPB support. But without the seed money provided by CPB early on, and without the shielding of noncommercial frequencies by the FCC, we'd never have survived childhood. The internet media hasn't yet produced a viable, general-interest newsgathering organization. Slashcode makes for great dissemination, but it's hungry for content from outside. Salon is barely breathing, and isn't much of a "news" organ, anyway. And great as your employer's content can be, it's special-interest. Most of the general interest reporting online has been recast from print or the electronic media and makes little use of the technology's potential. I think an organization that would seed and shield would greatly aid the development of independent, general-interest internet reporting organizations. Does it need to be government? Dunno -- a hefty foundation might be able to pull it off. But it seems to me that Grossman and Minow's proposal is at least a starting place. Best, -- Rick Karr Cultural Correspondent National Public Radio News *** N.B.: OPINIONS ARE MINE, NOT NPR's *** [I don't disagree with Rick's assessment of the state of only-online news ventures, only with his proposed solution. One can bemoan the sad state of, say, American literature or filmmaking without advocating a $18 billion new federal agency to set things right. Same with taxpayer-supported online news. ---Declan] ********** Reply-To: "Ben" <bmwat_private> From: "Ben" <bmwat_private> To: <declanat_private>, <politechat_private> References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010723153116.02531e40at_private> Subject: Re: Ex-PBS and FCC chiefs want $18 billion new agency, WSJ says Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 12:01:45 -0400 This whole idea is a walking time-bomb for a corporate welfare scandal. Whether any use exists for it now, as bandwidth and technology grows eventually sites won't need to rely on subscriptions OR advertisers. The Internet gives just about anybody the ability to make it big, and change the world, through their own ingeniuty. Making them dependent on companies like Doubleclick, or putting them in a 2nd class below people who have government funding, is counter-productive. It's also a great way to turn the internet into the same shit-geyser TV has become. And when running a website becomes much less expensive, the only purpose this agency will serve is to subsidize their buddies and anyone else who sends a prostit---I mean lobbyist, down to fellate---I mean, talk with them. ********** From: "Singleton, Norman" <Norman.Singletonat_private> To: declanat_private Subject: RE: Ex-PBS and FCC chiefs want $18 billion new agency, WSJ says Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 09:08:42 -0400 you missed one big problem with this -- will Drudge get funding under this proposal or lewrockwell.com? Doubt it, this agency would give a competitive advantages to web sites approved by the regime. ********** ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jul 25 2001 - 15:41:19 PDT