NationStates Jolt Archive

In other words, "Why should the government fund public broadcasting?". This thread (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8862553&postcount=1) pointed out that the Democrats in Congress are unhappy about some conservative viewpoints being introduced into public broadcasting schedules. The fact that the government thinks it is important enough to fund state-sponsored radio and TV programming hints that it serves a purpose? What purpose?

My guess is that it is the only place liberal ideas can be broadcast. The liberals can't hack it in the marketplace, so they demand the government make life "fair". How about it?

I don't believe that the government should be in the position of funding public broadcasting.

If there were no broadcasters, and the equipment was far too expensive and the technology difficult (as it was in the early days of radio and TV), I can see some government funding.

But otherwise, you risk being seen as pushing propaganda or pushing an agenda, no matter how "independent" you seem.

I don't see any reason for it. None.

Ummm...

Public Broadcasting was offered as an alternative to commercial television and it largely provided programming that definitely is not always Nielsen nor advertiser-friendly.

A difficulty it has run into is that a lot of the content that it used to exclusively provide is now found on cable, such as educational programming (Sesame Street anyone?), cooking shows, in depth news programs, international programs and news content, programs from local producers (Antique Roadshow is produced by WGBH in Boston as was Zoom), and again programs that would not be found on commercial television such as An American Family, Greg Nava's drama about a Latino family or the documentaries covered on Independent Lens or POV.

The liberal/conservative arguments...I was not aware of it growing up and I largely don't care in that this is becoming an asinine tit for tat. Each side accuses the other of violating their rights and gripe about having to pay fo it.

While PBS is supported by the corporate for public broadcasting, it only represents about 15%, though a significant one. PBS has been on a mission for sometime to do withouth that 15% and still maintain its quality programming. I suppose now that mission is going to become Priority One.

This issue was profiled on Greater Boston, which is local (as to Boston) PBS program. I believe that you could locate the show and its transcript on their website.

Ummm...

Public Broadcasting was offered as an alternative to commercial television and it largely provided programming that definitely is not always Nielsen nor advertiser-friendly.

A difficulty it has run into is that a lot of the content that it used to exclusively provide is now found on cable, such as educational programming (Sesame Street anyone?), cooking shows, in depth news programs, international programs and news content, programs from local producers (Antique Roadshow is produced by WGBH in Boston as was Zoom), and again programs that would not be found on commercial television such as An American Family, Greg Nava's drama about a Latino family or the documentaries covered on Independent Lens or POV.

The liberal/conservative arguments...I was not aware of it growing up and I largely don't care in that this is becoming an asinine tit for tat. Each side accuses the other of violating their rights and gripe about having to pay fo it.

While PBS is supported by the corporate for public broadcasting, it only represents about 15%, though a significant one. PBS has been on a mission for sometime to do withouth that 15% and still maintain its quality programming. I suppose now that mission is going to become Priority One.

This issue was profiled on Greater Boston, which is local (as to Boston) PBS program. I believe that you could locate the show and its transcript on their website.


PBS stations in the larger urban areas would survive. Those in smaller communities need the majority of that 15 percent. I would bet that there would only be three or four PBS stations if it went private.

Ummm...

Public Broadcasting was offered as an alternative to commercial television and it largely provided programming that definitely is not always Nielsen nor advertiser-friendly.

A difficulty it has run into is that a lot of the content that it used to exclusively provide is now found on cable, such as educational programming (Sesame Street anyone?), cooking shows, in depth news programs, international programs and news content, programs from local producers (Antique Roadshow is produced by WGBH in Boston as was Zoom), and again programs that would not be found on commercial television such as An American Family, Greg Nava's drama about a Latino family or the documentaries covered on Independent Lens or POV.

The liberal/conservative arguments...I was not aware of it growing up and I largely don't care in that this is becoming an asinine tit for tat. Each side accuses the other of violating their rights and gripe about having to pay fo it.

While PBS is supported by the corporate for public broadcasting, it only represents about 15%, though a significant one. PBS has been on a mission for sometime to do withouth that 15% and still maintain its quality programming. I suppose now that mission is going to become Priority One.

This issue was profiled on Greater Boston, which is local (as to Boston) PBS program. I believe that you could locate the show and its transcript on their website.
So if the government support is minimal, let's just drop it and have well-to-do benefactors pick up the slack. I'm sure there are all sorts of people that would like to have their products/foundations/causes associated with growing up in ghettos or with hocking the family heirlooms.

In a land without cable, internet and satelite PBS has a place. That place ain't America. PBS used to say, "If we don't do it noone would," wow what a positive outlook.

Who would do it? Who is doing it? Animal Planet,The History Channel, History International, Discovery, Discovery Science, Discovery Health, Discovery Times, The National Geographic Channel, Home and Garden TV, Do-it-Yourself Network, Bravo, Fit TV, Noggin, PBS Kids (pay channel), 2 channels of Nickeloneon, Discovery Kids and others.

BBC. Voila.

BBC. Voila.
Or it's cousin, the CBC.

One fine purpose was displayed in Rwanda

This is terribly off-topic but I've had it... recently a new pet peeve has festered into a nasty carbuncle on my grammar-correct mind's eye:

can not

do people not learn at a very young age that it is one word, IE, cannot?

sorry... but I had to vent this frustration. It is embarassing to work with people who do not know that "can not" is incorrect.

This is terribly off-topic but I've had it... recently a new pet peeve has festered into a nasty carbuncle of my grammar-consciousness:

can not

do people not learn at a very young age that it is one word, IE, cannot?

sorry... but I had to vent this frustration. It is embarassing to work with people who do not know that "can not" is incorrect.

Well, from an editorial point of view, it depends on the context.

"Cannot" is the recognized negative form of "can".

However, "can not" can be used to present an emphatic alternative, such as, "You can love your pets, but you can not LOVE your pets." Usually, this happens when the written word is meant to mimic speech. There is also a fundamental difference between the meanings of the two. "Can not" implies that you have a choice, such as "You can do thing A, or you can not do thing A."

So it really depends on the usage and context.

BBC. Voila.
This is really supposed to focus on our CPB, but why should citizens of the UK fund state-sponsored media? What does it provide that market-driven media doesn't? The list of cable/satellite channels in a prior post only scratches the surface.

In other words, "Why should the government fund public broadcasting?". This thread (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8862553&postcount=1) pointed out that the Democrats in Congress are unhappy about some conservative viewpoints being introduced into public broadcasting schedules. The fact that the government thinks it is important enough to fund state-sponsored radio and TV programming hints that it serves a purpose? What purpose?

My guess is that it is the only place liberal ideas can be broadcast. The liberals can't hack it in the marketplace, so they demand the government make life "fair". How about it?

Because information is not just a commodity in a democratic society. Mainstream media is only the voice of the corporation that owns it. That's not conspiracy theory, it's just simple fact. If you owned a news service and someone had evidence that you might (not were, just might) be a child molester, would you let your news service report on it? No, of course not. Same thing with corporate media. It's inherently conservative because conservative politicans are allied big corporate interests.

PBS is supposed to put out information that informs people, but which is not neccesarily marketable. The market is not some all knowing force that can determine which ideas are important and which aren't. Just because something is not able to earn money for itself doesn't mean that it isn't useful. Go take a look at the National Endowmend for the Arts thread to see what I"m talking about.

And for the record liberal ideas are marketable. Take a listen to Air America (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) sometime and compare real liberal views to NPR and PBS that only sounds liberal because it's not retarded.

BBC. Voila.
Considering the recent brouhaha over who said what about WMD and government scientists, and whose fault it was that a story was "wrong" and a man killed himself,

and the PM essentially gets his way and someone resigns and the rest are called on the carpet...

I wonder how "unbiased" the BBC was, or is.

In a land without cable, internet and satelite PBS has a place. That place ain't America. PBS used to say, "If we don't do it noone would," wow what a positive outlook.

Who would do it? Who is doing it? Animal Planet,The History Channel, History International, Discovery, Discovery Science, Discovery Health, Discovery Times, The National Geographic Channel, Home and Garden TV, Do-it-Yourself Network, Bravo, Fit TV, Noggin, PBS Kids (pay channel), 2 channels of Nickeloneon, Discovery Kids and others.I haven't watched much TV in the past couple of years (I primarily use computers for entertainment). So, I may be a little out-of-touch with TV land, here.

That said.... If I remember correctly, the examples you cited are all cable/satellite channels. Cable and satellite are not options for low-income households in the United States. PBS is the only free-broadcast channel (that I'm aware of) that provides primarily educational programming and most kinds of entertainment programming that are more cultured than "Americas Next Top Model".

Sadly, I don't have time to properly research and debate this in depth, so I'll just assert without proof that an educated populace is more likely to be a productive, responsible, and law-abiding than an uneducated populace. PBS is a valuable supplement to the American educational system (which, itself, is sadly lacking in some areas), especially for children (and their parents) in low-income households who don't have many options.

Public school, public libraries, PBS, what else do we have?

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

And for the record liberal ideas are marketable. Take a listen to Air America (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) sometime and compare real liberal views to NPR and PBS that only sounds liberal because it's not retarded.
Agreed.

Public radio and TV don't get all that much money from the government. Most of their budget is provided by donations from listeners/viewers, donations from philanthropic organizations, and donations from business.

Public broadcasting is good because it presents (in theory) an independant viewpoint that's not altered by what the sponsors might think and whether or not they'll lose advertizing revenue. Unfortunately since government has kept reducing the ammount of money they pay toward public broadcasting major corporations have begun to make up the funding shortfall. It only stands to reason that if a science program is partially funded by Exxon they risk losing their money if they cover the impact of fossil fuels on the environment. This defeats the purpose of public broadcasting, and should be viewed as an embarrasment to our nation. We can't even keep one form of our media truly independant of corporate influence.

In a land without cable, internet and satelite PBS has a place. That place ain't America. PBS used to say, "If we don't do it noone would," wow what a positive outlook.

Who would do it? Who is doing it? Animal Planet,The History Channel, History International, Discovery, Discovery Science, Discovery Health, Discovery Times, The National Geographic Channel, Home and Garden TV, Do-it-Yourself Network, Bravo, Fit TV, Noggin, PBS Kids (pay channel), 2 channels of Nickeloneon, Discovery Kids and others.
Have you watched any science programming on cable TV? It's worthless, that is if you can find it. Discovery channel would rather show 24 hours of people building motorcycles and hotrods. Science programming on PBS isn't dumbed down, it's shown regularly, and it's worth alot more to our society's future than Paul Senior's latest rant about Paul Junior showing up late.

Here in Finland the only channel to air Babylon 5 was a government sponsored one and that alone makes me support public broadcasting. .)

Because information is not just a commodity in a democratic society. Mainstream media is only the voice of the corporation that owns it. That's not conspiracy theory, it's just simple fact. If you owned a news service and someone had evidence that you might (not were, just might) be a child molester, would you let your news service report on it? No, of course not. Same thing with corporate media. It's inherently conservative because conservative politicans are allied big corporate interests.

PBS is supposed to put out information that informs people, but which is not neccesarily marketable. The market is not some all knowing force that can determine which ideas are important and which aren't. Just because something is not able to earn money for itself doesn't mean that it isn't useful. Go take a look at the National Endowmend for the Arts thread to see what I"m talking about.

And for the record liberal ideas are marketable. Take a listen to Air America (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) sometime and compare real liberal views to NPR and PBS that only sounds liberal because it's not retarded.

First, I don't see how useful information can not be a commodity. What the rain forest sounds like when it is being cut down isn't particulary useful and I wouldn't listen to it on NPR or on WSB.

Government patronage of the arts is another whole problem. If you ever want to give someone directions to a government area, just get them in the right part of town, then tell them to look for the "most awful piece of sculpture you can find". That's the spot where the government building will be.

Do you actually listen to NPR? I find most of their programming fair, not liberal. Also they cover news stories better than mainstream media. They provide more details than CNN, and a greater diversity of stories (particularly international stories).

Public radio and TV don't get all that much money from the government. Most of their budget is provided by donations from listeners/viewers, donations from philanthropic organizations, and donations from business.

Of course without that government funding they've had to turn to increased "corporate underwriting" (not to be confused with commercials :mad: ). I'm sorry but "Exxon/Mobile Masterpiece Theatre" just doesn't have the same ring to it. Reminds me of the Mad TV sketch "Master P's Theater."

Do you actually listen to NPR? I find most of their programming fair, not liberal. Also they cover news stories better than mainstream media. They provide more details than CNN, and a greater diversity of stories (particularly international stories).
I don't drive as much as I used to, but I do listen to the Boring Edition on the way to work. Best part of it is always the headlines. I don't see a lot of bias in the stories that are presented. The bias tends toward bias of omission, instead.

I work at the wrong time to hear it, but I always liked Fresh Air.Teri Gross always had someone interesting and she does a good interview.

First, I don't see how useful information can not be a commodity. What the rain forest sounds like when it is being cut down isn't particulary useful and I wouldn't listen to it on NPR or on WSB.

Government patronage of the arts is another whole problem. If you ever want to give someone directions to a government area, just get them in the right part of town, then tell them to look for the "most awful piece of sculpture you can find". That's the spot where the government building will be.

Find someone who's going to tell you about Coca/Cola's labor practices in south America. Find me a news outlet that will tell you that people cannot live comfortably on a dollar a day in a Nike sweatshop in Bangladesh. There was some coverage of Bush permiting the overthrow of war-criminal Charles Taylor, but how come no one pointed out that Pat Robertson was opposed to it because he was funding those war crimes with a Liberian gold mine?

Coca-cola, Nike, the CBN are all corporate interests. Disney (who owns ABC and all of their cable stations) all but admitted that they were trying to quash unfavorable press coverage of the Iraq war because they wanted Bush's brother to give them tax breaks. How can you expect that you will get honest news service from them? They make more money on your ignorance that's why information is not a commodity.

Find someone who's going to tell you about Coca/Cola's labor practices in south America. Find me a news outlet that will tell you that people cannot live comfortably on a dollar a day in a Nike sweatshop in Bangladesh. There was some coverage of Bush permiting the overthrow of war-criminal Charles Taylor, but how come no one pointed out that Pat Robertson was opposed to it because he was funding those war crimes with a Liberian gold mine?

Coca-cola, Nike, the CBN are all corporate interests. Disney (who owns ABC and all of their cable stations) all but admitted that they were trying to quash unfavorable press coverage of the Iraq war because they wanted Bush's brother to give them tax breaks. How can you expect that you will get honest news service from them? They make more money on your ignorance that's why information is not a commodity.
Frankly, most people don't care. The government doesn't have the duty to provide obscure bits of information to a few people that want to hear it. The goverment does offer an avenue for public broadcasting to be special. That's through tax-exempt status. That's about as much support as there should be.

Frankly, most people don't care. The government doesn't have the duty to provide obscure bits of information to a few people that want to hear it. The goverment does offer an avenue for public broadcasting to be special. That's through tax-exempt status. That's about as much support as there should be.

Most people don't care because we've got unethical politicians encouraging ignorance and apathy telling people that they're morally superior to people who care about things like American Corporations engaging in mass murder to save a few cents an hour on labor costs. Those people are intellectual snobs, but you're the salt of the Earth. You care about capitalism, materialism, and a diet cola version of Christianity that tastes great and is less filling.

The government does have an obligation to provide us with the information that will decide how we vote. It's built into their oathes of office that state that they will do their job "faithfully." But they don't do it. They provide us with the information that will get us to stop paying attention. I'd say that they provide us with the information that makes them look good, but I don't think you can call it information when they make it up.

Considering the recent brouhaha over who said what about WMD and government scientists, and whose fault it was that a story was "wrong" and a man killed himself,

and the PM essentially gets his way and someone resigns and the rest are called on the carpet...

I wonder how "unbiased" the BBC was, or is.
The BBC is very unbiased. Sometimes bad journalism happens but people got fired.
The benifits are excellent programming and no commercial breaks.
I've wathced Fox news. I can't tell how biased it is without comparisons (although it seems more confrontational than UK news) but there's a break ever 5 minutes. Maddening.
I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't recognise that the BBC has produced a long line of excellent TV and radio programmes and now streams them to the world for free.

This is really supposed to focus on our CPB, but why should citizens of the UK fund state-sponsored media? What does it provide that market-driven media doesn't? The list of cable/satellite channels in a prior post only scratches the surface.
The Beeb provides easily the best television coverage in the UK, excepting the Channel 4 news (which is a mix of private and public). Crucially for me, there are no damn adverts.

Considering the recent brouhaha over who said what about WMD and government scientists, and whose fault it was that a story was "wrong" and a man killed himself,

and the PM essentially gets his way and someone resigns and the rest are called on the carpet...

I wonder how "unbiased" the BBC was, or is.
The point is surely that it made allegations that were challenged, leading to an open court hearing (which was, it seems, a whitewash). If it displays significant bias, it gets picked up. The Beeb gets attacked by the Tories and Labour, which suggests to me that it's doing OK for bias.

It utterly fails in many regards, no doubt. But it's still better than the alternatives.

EDIT: furthermore, the private media in Britain tends to be the most supportive of the government. Greased palms, etc.

The beloved Fox is a part of a corporate empire that also controls a good chunk of British media, to the detriment of all of us.

The BBC rocks. Even if only for the lack of commercials it rocks.

It hhas good news services which provide the best unbiased view they can. It has great entertainments (Ant&Dec versus Doctor Who, there's only one winner)

Most people don't care because we've got unethical politicians encouraging ignorance and apathy telling people that they're morally superior to people who care about things like American Corporations engaging in mass murder to save a few cents an hour on labor costs. Those people are intellectual snobs, but you're the salt of the Earth. You care about capitalism, materialism, and a diet cola version of Christianity that tastes great and is less filling.

The government does have an obligation to provide us with the information that will decide how we vote. It's built into their oathes of office that state that they will do their job "faithfully." But they don't do it. They provide us with the information that will get us to stop paying attention. I'd say that they provide us with the information that makes them look good, but I don't think you can call it information when they make it up.
I listened to some of this "important information" on the way home today. All Things Considered treated me to a half hour story about how Marquette University was struggling to find a mascot that would catch on. I got to learn how they canned the "Warrior" mascot because one or two Indians were thought to have been offended. Then I heard about how they canned the Golden Eagle mascot because it didn't pass muster in focus groups. Finally I heard how the recently revealed "Gold" mascot/nickname was just completely rejected by faculty, alumni, and students alike. The story ended on a happy note. There would be two rounds of voting to choose a new mascot/nickname. Warriors was excluded. Can't offend that Indian, you know.

But wait, there's more. I was then treated to more examples of how the Podunk Chickadees had to change to Bluejays when the Chickadee population was offended, then to Wildcats when the rest of the birds couldn't agree on a new mascot. Thank goodness the feline family has thick skins. What would we do without Panthers, Wildcats, and Tigers.

And there's still more. Since the stringer from Marquette couldn't fill the rest of the hour with stories about how the Buckeyes at Ohio State had to change their name from the Acorns when the oak trees objected, we were treated to a commentary. Apparently a NPR commentary is what results when someone with a journalism degree lists words like willy-nilly, helter-skelter, piggly-wiggly, and so on for two minutes.

What was the motto of PBS? I think it was "If we don't do it who will? Well, no one in their commercial mind would broadcast such garbage in a news broadcast.

I do believe in statistics and probability. I suspect that this kind of story is broadcast pretty regularyly. That makes me even more dead set against government funding of media. It's a waste of the taxes that are extorted from me every year.

The BBC rocks. Even if only for the lack of commercials it rocks.

It hhas good news services which provide the best unbiased view they can. It has great entertainments (Ant&Dec versus Doctor Who, there's only one winner)
I've got another question. Why is it taken for granted that a government will spin everything to it's advantage, but that it's appointees that run the media outlets will be unbiased?

Public broadcasting serves the state. It is unconstitutional. The FCC is also unconstitutional and serves only statist. (U.S.)

Public broadcasting serves the state. It is unconstitutional. The FCC is also unconstitutional and serves only statist. (U.S.)

Boy, am I glad Britain doesn't have a Constitution.

I've got another question. Why is it taken for granted that a government will spin everything to it's advantage, but that it's appointees that run the media outlets will be unbiased?

In the specific instance of the BBC, simple observation. If it's biased, it's doing a pretty good job of hiding it. We know because we watch, we listen, we read.

In the case of the US, I couldn't possibly say.

Boy, am I glad Britain doesn't have a Constitution.



In the specific instance of the BBC, simple observation. If it's biased, it's doing a pretty good job of hiding it. We know because we watch, we listen, we read.

In the case of the US, I couldn't possibly say.

Maybe it reinforces your world view. Do you hold the same world view as your government? The BBC does have some funny shows!

Maybe it reinforces your world view. Do you hold the same world view as your government? The BBC does have some funny shows!
The popular shows would play on any network. It's the obtuse stuff that doesn't deserve government support

In other words, "Why should the government fund public broadcasting?". This thread (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8862553&postcount=1) pointed out that the Democrats in Congress are unhappy about some conservative viewpoints being introduced into public broadcasting schedules. The fact that the government thinks it is important enough to fund state-sponsored radio and TV programming hints that it serves a purpose? What purpose?

My guess is that it is the only place liberal ideas can be broadcast. The liberals can't hack it in the marketplace, so they demand the government make life "fair". How about it?

There is a marketplace. Look at Moore.

There is a marketplace. Look at Moore.
Ha! I think he's been discredited enough. His complete rejection at the Academy Awards was justice enough. But, he does make money without government sponsorship, so I guess there are outlets for liberal lies. Even more reason for the government to let go of public broadcasting.

In Australia (I can't comment on the American PBS but the shows we get from it are very good quality) public television (ABC and SBS) is vital because the commercial channels only broadcast on the coast pretty much because that's where the majority of the population is. Thus the ABC and SBS serves an important part in rural life as often they are the only channels that can be recieved. The best part is that both sides complain about it equally because it exposes both sides of parliment's dirty tricks. It also serves the purpose of acting as an emergency broadcast channel and manages to air some content that wouldn't be found on other commercial networks (like "Landline," "Message Stick" and "Sister Wendy's collections."

Most people don't care because we've got unethical politicians encouraging ignorance and apathy telling people that they're morally superior to people who care about things like American Corporations engaging in mass murder to save a few cents an hour on labor costs. Those people are intellectual snobs, but you're the salt of the Earth. You care about capitalism, materialism, and a diet cola version of Christianity that tastes great and is less filling.

The government does have an obligation to provide us with the information that will decide how we vote. It's built into their oathes of office that state that they will do their job "faithfully." But they don't do it. They provide us with the information that will get us to stop paying attention. I'd say that they provide us with the information that makes them look good, but I don't think you can call it information when they make it up.

Not really. People don't watch it because it's boring. But nice try. And guess who has the obligation to get proper news? That's right, you and me.

Just to mention another problem with trusting the "market" then it comes to information, and that is that the market is based on who's got the money. Then it comes to cable as people already mention evryone can't afforde. And then it comes to advertisment it very easy to see that is mutch worse loosing for example 1000 people with a income over 50000 dollar/year then 2000 people with a income less then 20000 dollar/year. Therefor it is a risk media show that the people with money wan't to see and try not to offend them with controversal topics.

In a land without cable, internet and satelite PBS has a place. That place ain't America. PBS used to say, "If we don't do it noone would," wow what a positive outlook.

Who would do it? Who is doing it? Animal Planet,The History Channel, History International, Discovery, Discovery Science, Discovery Health, Discovery Times, The National Geographic Channel, Home and Garden TV, Do-it-Yourself Network, Bravo, Fit TV, Noggin, PBS Kids (pay channel), 2 channels of Nickeloneon, Discovery Kids and others.

Not everyone can afford cable, internet, or satellite.

Not everyone can afford cable, internet, or satellite.
But is equal access to information that is sometimes trivial a right guaranteed by the Constitution? Is it even reasonable to assume that the information presented by CPB is desired by those that don't or can't buy media services beyond rabbit ears?

I think we're talking about such a minority that the cost to benefit ratio is way out of whack. Plus, I don't think PBS/NPR programming is all that consistently of a high quality or of a desirable nature. Look at my little rant about the history of the Marquette mascot and school nickname. "Jumpin' Jesuits", was one of the alternatives in the voting. Why do I care about that? Even worse, why should anyone not affiliated with Marquette? If they do, they can go to the library and look it up. Libraries are still free and available to everyone.

Just to mention another problem with trusting the "market" then it comes to information, and that is that the market is based on who's got the money. Then it comes to cable as people already mention evryone can't afforde. And then it comes to advertisment it very easy to see that is mutch worse loosing for example 1000 people with a income over 50000 dollar/year then 2000 people with a income less then 20000 dollar/year. Therefor it is a risk media show that the people with money wan't to see and try not to offend them with controversal topics.

You'll notice that information spreads on the Internet, and sources are regarded as trusted or not trusted, without the interference of market forces.