Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Where you and I differ is that I feel the public would THEN consume REAL news, if we gave it to them.
|
I'm trying to decide if it's just my cynicism that's driving my urge to disagree with that, or anything actually empirical I can point to. My first thought was the latter. Having tried to, I'm now opting for the former. You take this round, Skeletor.
Then again:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
The BBC is a good example. Americans are no dumber than the Brits. We don't even drive on the wrong side of the road  Yet the brits consume the HELL out of the BBC, and are on the whole much more informed about what's going on in their country, and the world, because of it. I think Americans would be the same way, if only they were given the chance. |
Actually, the BBC is a good example. Yes, on the whole, we are better informed thanks to that than we might have been, and in a lot of ways, the BBC is a godsend, because if it wasn't for that, we'd basically be in Rupert Murdoch's sweaty little pocket for keeps.
On the other hand, the BBC, because it's funded by the TV licence (called a 'tax' by some) that people all over the world are frequently shocked and appalled to hear about, has to justify its existence. If it doesn't pull in the viewers, its 'public service' remit is questioned by the government, and that funding could be pulled. In recent years, we've seen the BBC launching what amount to commercial sattelite channels, aping the reality and talent show formats so beloved of the commercial networks, and basically dumbing itself down (I hate that phrase) until it barely resembles anything remotely intellectual. It's been forced into competition, and in order to stay afloat, it's basically had to lobotomise itself. It's what people seem to want.
It provides its highbrow content on a digital channel called BBC4 now, which used to get ridiculed for the pitifully low numbers of people tuning in, while its flagship soap opera, EastEnders (an unremittingly grim piece of television) draws in millions, and airs something like four episodes a week, and a two hour omnibus repeat on Sundays. Now, it might be entertaining, but if there's a show on TV that does a better job of exploiting sheer human suffering for entertainment, I'm not sure what it is.
See, at least with a network like PBS, people choose whether to pay for it or not. The BBC, you get no choice. Everyone who has a TV pays. They have to walk a very slender tightrope, and when it comes to giving people what they want, they pretty much exclusively plump for the lowbrow. At least, that much is true for BBC1, the flagship terrestrial channel.