Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So I'll keep this short to avoid the lengthy introductory posts most of these sort of threads have.

    I can't come up with a logical justification to defend government spending on things like the arts, NPR, BBC, the film industry, Arts Council grants etc. I love NPR and it makes me sad to see the House of Representatives in the US vote to take away it's funding (even if it'll probably be saved by Senate) and I love the BBC but I can't justify the government taxing people more to spend on publicly-funded broadcasting and arts.

    So how do you justify it? I'd really like to know.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Watch ITV. Seriously.

    That's more than enough justification for the BBC and the license fee.

    The BBC educates you, provides quality news, decent children's programmes and so on. ITV is just a PR organ for Simon Cowell.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    Watch ITV. Seriously.

    That's more than enough justification for the BBC and the license fee.
    I know, I know; like I said, I love the BBC but why should everyone be responsible for providing quality programming for the er, "intellectual elite". Sorry, that's a horribly arrogant turn of phrase but you know what I mean. If ITV is mass-market then it caters for the majority of people.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by contention)
    I know, I know; like I said, I love the BBC but why should everyone be responsible for providing quality programming for the er, "intellectual elite".Sorry, that's a horribly arrogant turn of phrase but you know what I mean. If ITV is mass-market then it caters for the majority of people.
    Because if we left it up to the private sector we would be drowning in commercialised TV...I just gave ITV as an example :confused:

    Are you asking why educating people is better than not educating them? Figure it out yourself.

    I understand your point that it might not be the state's "job" to do that, but the fact of the matter is that the private sector (as a profit driven industry) doesn't care for culture or education but rather for money. We have clear examples of this in our media. So £145 seems like a fairly reasonable sum to pay for TV without an agenda.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Efficient democracy requires the voters to be informed thus there is a justification for public service broadcasters. The market does not produce quality unbiased reporting vis a vie SkyNews, Fox, NBC etc

    There is no significant justification for subsidising the arts in my opinion. The free market should be left to do that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    Because if we left it up to the private sector we would be drowning in commercialised TV...I just gave ITV as an example :confused:

    Are you asking why educating people is better than not educating them? Figure it out yourself.

    I understand your point that it might not be the state's "job" to do that, but the fact of the matter is that the private sector (as a profit driven industry) doesn't care for culture or education but rather for money. We have clear examples of this in our media. So £145 seems like a fairly reasonable sum to pay for TV without an agenda.
    Is it really the government's place to safeguard the quality of television and provide artificial stability to the arts? I'd love to think it was but I just don't see where there's any basis for this.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by contention)
    Is it really the government's place to safeguard the quality of television and provide artificial stability to the arts? I'd love to think it was but I just don't see where there's any basis for this.
    Well then you can't complain if people become X factor obsessed Sun readers.

    (I accept that a lot of people are already like that...but remove the BBC and arts funding, and I think we'll be heading the way of America sooner rather than later).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    Watch ITV. Seriously.

    That's more than enough justification for the BBC and the license fee.

    The BBC educates you, provides quality news, decent children's programmes and so on. ITV is just a PR organ for Simon Cowell.
    This!!!

    It keeps the public reliably informed with no or very little bias. Channel 4 news is my favourite :love:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by contention)
    Is it really the government's place to safeguard the quality of television and provide artificial stability to the arts? I'd love to think it was but I just don't see where there's any basis for this.
    Then why should the government have a state education system?

    The state has a moral responsibility to educate but not to indoctrinate.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    It creates high quality services for the population, without the profit motive constantly existing. The BBC can take more risks, put a lot more high quality educational programs etc.

    As for spending for the arts, it protects them. Just because something goes "out of fashion" and aren't economically viable would normally mean they're dead. Government funding allows artistic freedom without the profit motive.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think the state should fund the arts, and the BBC should be privatised.

    As art is natural, then it would always be present in some form. People produce art (whether painting, drawing, sculpture, acting, music, etc.) for pleasure or for expression. Before mass government funding of arts, was there less art available? Isn't art also cultural in nature? As such, don't practically all cultures have arts?

    As for the BBC, well we have reality TV due to supply and demand. It is popular since it caters to the lowest common denominator, like most pop culture does. If people want quality (a relative term, obviously) TV, then niche companies would provide it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    You can't get rid of arts funding...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvNw0P5ZMbA
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.