NationStates Jolt Archive

My question today is quite simple, do you consider private or public television channels to be of better quality in your opinion. I have pay-tv here in Australian, and so looking at the BBC and the ABC in particular and other channels, I have come to the conclusion that public channels for the most part are the only ones that put on historical or the like documentaries, complex political programs and the like, stuff that won't get you ratings but is interesting, thought provoking and education at the least. While on the other hand it seems for the most part that private television most usually will come out with the sensational and commercial garbage that only the apathetic and downright unintelligent would watch. Do you therefore think, as my personal opinion, that a certain degree of public funding is needed for public channels in order to televise more sensible and educational material on the air, while private channels only tend to air stuff that is commercially viable.

Well then, you obviously have never heard of Noel Edmonds or Jonathan Ross.

Public is decent quality here: Nova, Frontline, 20/20, the Ken Burns stuff, Arts Showcase (or whatever it's called) and things like that. I still prefer pay-t.v. just for the variety, but public does a decent job.

Public is decent quality here: Nova, Frontline, 20/20, the Ken Burns stuff, Arts Showcase (or whatever it's called) and things like that. I still prefer pay-t.v. just for the variety, but public does a decent job.
20/20 is not public television in the way he's describing it. Nova, Ken Burns, and Frontline (I had momentarily confused it with Nightline) all play on the Public Broadcasting System and are paid for in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting which receives funding from the government, corporations, foundations, and viewers like you.

20/20 is on ABC and while it is a broadcast channel, which in the US means you don't have to pay for it, rather it receives a license to use the airwaves to broadcast and garners its revenues from advertising rates based on the number of viewers it has. As a result it is bound by what will attract viewers, and increasingly certain types of viewers. (ie, ones who will buy shit).

Publicly funded channels can provide programing that wouldn't necessarily survive in that market. This opens things up for more voices that are in the public interest and not in the interest of 18-35 year old males who make between 45-80 thousand dollars. (That was grabbed out of thin air just to get the idea).

There is a room for commercially driven television and for publicly funded television.

20/20 is not public television in the way he's describing it. Nova, Ken Burns, and Frontline (I had momentarily confused it with Nightline) all play on the Public Broadcasting System and are paid for in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting which receives funding from the government, corporations, foundations, and viewers like you.

20/20 is on ABC and while it is a broadcast channel, which in the US means you don't have to pay for it, rather it receives a license to use the airwaves to broadcast and garners its revenues from advertising rates based on the number of viewers it has. As a result it is bound by what will attract viewers, and increasingly certain types of viewers. (ie, ones who will buy shit).

Publicly funded channels can provide programing that wouldn't necessarily survive in that market. This opens things up for more voices that are in the public interest and not in the interest of 18-35 year old males who make between 45-80 thousand dollars. (That was grabbed out of thin air just to get the idea).

There is a room for commercially driven television and for publicly funded television.

Yeah, I goofed on the 20/20. I was thinking of something else. McLaughlin Group, maybe. But I like Public to some degree, although I lost one of my public stations inexplicably recently.

The Liberal govt over here seems to hate ABC something shocking.

The Liberal govt over here seems to hate ABC something shocking.

Here in the US the conservatives hate PBS.

Here in the US the conservatives hate PBS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastard_Boys

The ABC did this and other programs about politics, I think it's common experience that conservative governments hate public broadcasting because it deals with real political people issues and the like, as opposed to the nonsensical and sensational apathetic viewing they would prefer to keep them out of the light.

Here in the US the conservatives hate PBS.

I dunno - I kinda like it. ;) And who doesn't love Masterpiece Theater? :p

I only watch six shows, and one of those is only on in the summer. They're all part of a private television companies broadcasting schedule; three are on cable.
I guess then I like private, but really everything else I hate.

I prefer the BBC (And not having whatever you're watching interrupted by adverts is a major plus) They have the best comedy and the best dramas on television. And now they no longer have neighbours, things may improve further :D

i prefer indipendent community radio.

if there were such a thing as that on the box i'd be interested, i mean besides that christer propiganda crap.

if i had cable i'd be watching the p.e.g. channels and whatever anime i could find, but even that would mostly take away from what little time as it is i have for getting anything done, on the computer or elsewise. plus it all costs more then its worth.

and the stuff that's still broadcast that you don't need cable or some equivelant for, less the 1% is any good, and a lot less then that is worth turning it on for. so i don't.

maybe, someday, when cultural values get their head out of their ass, media's reflection of them might be worth watching. maybe. someday.

but that's a day i'll believe when i see it.

corporacratic and supposedly public are both inordinately influenced by values that are not in anyone's interest.

public, slightly less so perhapse, to keep up the appearances of being less so.
while private is very slick, and damd near devoid of anything resembling content.

=^^=
.../\...

In the UK telivision in the summer is crap wheather you have to watch adverts or not.

The bbc is proberbly best of the standard 4. They don't disgrace themselves whith big brother like channel 4.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastard_Boys

The ABC did this and other programs about politics, I think it's common experience that conservative governments hate public broadcasting because it deals with real political people issues and the like, as opposed to the nonsensical and sensational apathetic viewing they would prefer to keep them out of the light.

Then again the ABC also has Chaser, which not only lambasted a unions "Your rights at work" add but also Lambasted "Bastard Boys" for their portrayal of the whole patrick steve-a-dore affairs... I only watched the first half... and it seemed to protray that violence was a natural response to the "scum". I personally don't like unions but as for the ABC, generally it's good (particularily in terms of Bias) but shows like Bastard Boys were as biased as you could get.

Then again the ABC also has Chaser, which not only lambasted a unions "Your rights at work" add but also Lambasted "Bastard Boys" for their portrayal of the whole patrick steve-a-dore affairs... I only watched the first half... and it seemed to protray that violence was a natural response to the "scum". I personally don't like unions but as for the ABC, generally it's good (particularily in terms of Bias) but shows like Bastard Boys were as biased as you could get.

Lol, well the Chaser hammered Kim Beazley unmercifully.

I don't watch any kind of TV.

I don't watch any kind of TV.

Not even sports?

I don't watch TV either. I'm only exposed to it in small doses at work, where people insist on turning the TV on in the lunch room.

And no, I don't think public television is needed. It certainly isn't in my country, anyway. Perhaps something very small to bring public messages and such would be good to have, but radio would work fine for that and be much cheaper. The Internet would be another way.

The problem with public television is that, just as with commercial television, it's mostly entertainment. And entertainment is not something we should take everyone's money to pay for.

Personally, I think that Channel 4 has the most variety and is the channel I watch most, but not because of its reality garbage. Channel 4 has Ugly betty (when it returns), it has Paul O Grady, It has Deal or no deal with NOEL, it has lots of good US comedies and dramas (although not many of its own) yet it is stained with the dire Big Brother.

BBC is good for dramas (Doctor Who, Jekyll etc.) but ITV and Channel 5 are awful. Only CSI and Prison Break save Channel 5 and they're both American.

In Germany, most definitely the pubic television. Just can't beat the quality.

What about the Discovery Channel, History Channel, Discovery Times Channel, Science Channel, and HBO has about 5 documentaries a week.

I'm out in the country and don't have satellite so among the choices being broadcast PBS (public) is the only one that isn't a complete waste of time.

I also think they are much more fair in their coverage of the news. They still seem to follow the fairness doctrine even though it was killed a few years back.

There is no quality at all on the commercial networks. Their "sitcom" (comedy) is all bathroom humor that seems to be aimed at pubescent audiences. Their news all leans to the far right.

I don't watch that much TV, but half the stuff they show on public TV (or at least that PBS crap in the US) can be better experienced in real life. Get your ass off the couch and live, goddamit!

Public I guess...

I don't know what life would be like without the CBC...

Also...I've been watching The Agenda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Agenda) a lot recently, for some reason...

I don't watch any kind of TV.

I don't believe that for a second...

I don't know what life would be like without the CBC...

A lot better? I wouldn't spend a cent to receive CBC television if the government didn't force it out of me. The only decent things they have are hockey games and the Simpsons. And I can watch those elsewhere.

Definitely prefer private TV.

I don't believe that for a second...

and why not?

FYI, BBC is crap in every country impart from the UK, from what i've found.

In Germany, most definitely the pubic television. Just can't beat the quality.

O_O (I had to do that)

The private TV. Public's good, just not a lot of variety.

What about the Discovery Channel, History Channel, Discovery Times Channel, Science Channel, and HBO has about 5 documentaries a week.

The History Channel!? About 50% of their stuff is about WW2.

The History Channel!? About 50% of their stuff is about WW2.

Not so much anymore.

They once were, not now.

Not so much anymore.

They once were, not now.

They have branched out. Though I would like to know in what way Ice Road Truckers is history...

Our public TV channels are pretty good.

They have branched out. Though I would like to know in what way Ice Road Truckers is history...

Well the longest the history channel here has gone without a WW2 show(disregarding marathons of non WW2 related shows) was about 6 hours, the average is about 1-1.5 hrs.

If it has a public charter then it can make decent television. But it's still fairly hit and miss.

Back in the 90s Channel 4 documentaries were much better than the BBC's Panorama in my opinion. Things like Cutting Edge and Modern Times were pretty good.

Documentaries these days are fairly dire in my opinion. :mad: