[Dixielandjazz] Re: Public Broadcasting

Sun Feb 27 11:09:25 PST 2005

Hi listmates,

(This may be a bit long and if you don’t want to read it, you could just 
skip to the last paragraph which I think is important to all of us.)

Listmate and good friend, Pat Ladd, wrote a rather critical review of TV in 
America. Among other things, he wrote:

(snip)
“My first encounter with American TV was a shock. Firstly because of the 
appallingly poor technical level of the picture compared to the UK (this was 
some years ago and you have now nearly caught up) and secondly because of 
the frequency of the interruptions of the programme by advertisements.”
(end snip)

I don’t remember exactly how many television channels there are available in 
England and I also don’t know how many cable and satellite channels are 
available to watch in the U.K.  But it is certainly true that in the U.S. we 
have hundreds and hundreds of channels available, all going day and night 
from Classical Music and Drama to Rap and Pornography. Most channels come at 
a price and the only channels available free to everyone are a limited 
number in any given community totalling perhaps 7 or 8 channels. In 
Sacramento I think they would be channels 3, 6, 10, 13, 40 and 58 (perhaps 
one or two more). If you want to watch anything else you have to buy the 
service from the local cable or satellite company.

The important difference is that this is a fee to the commercial enterprise 
and not the U.S. Government! In America free channels are just that - FREE - 
and Americans pay zero licensing fee to the government to receive anything 
over the airwaves.

Pat Ladd also writes:

(snip)
“The BBC on the other hand , freed from the restraints of having to chase 
ratings (although they do to some extent) can spend the license fee income 
on producing first class `classical` drama, music etc, with a more limited 
appeal.”
(end snip)

To what extent the BBC is “freed from restraints” is problematical. One 
normally “chases ratings” by providing that which is most desired by the 
consumer. If this results in “any sort of trash which will keep the audience 
watching their channel” then the BBC deliberatly ignores what the public 
want to watch. They (the public) must watch that which is deemed “better.”

Pat Ladd also writes:

(snip)
“Here the amount of advertising shown per hour is limited by law.”
(end snip)

Such limitations in the USA would be considered an infringement on the right 
of free expression and would be staunchly rejected by the first amendment to 
the Constitution. By the way, there may be some confusion between the use of 
the phrases “free speech” and “paid speech” such as commercial 
announcements.  The Constitution makes no distinction between the two and no 
legal mechanism exists to squelch commercial speech simply because it is 
bought and paid for. There may be other reasons to restrict speech (inciting 
to riot, etc.) but the fact that it is commercial is not one of them.

I will grant anyone the truth of the statement that American television 
contains tons and tons of pure garbage, poorly produced and edited and much 
of it is a total insult to intelligent people. The only thing to speak of in 
favor of the American system is ----> CHOICE! <---- .

There is a constant battle in this country (USA) between the forces of 
censorship and the forces of free expression. So far, free expression seems 
to have the winning position and, in spite of the fact that it means we have 
to put up with tons of trash, we also are free to select from many more tons 
of choices.  By the way, I believe Pat Ladd spells “tons” like this . . . 
“tonnes.”

Here one is not limited to a single channel controlled by the government.

Here one does not have to watch movies with excessive commercials. There are 
other sources of televised offerings which are more modest in the commercial 
aspects of the broadcast . . . some with none at all.

A criticism is leveled at the BBC to the effect that they have a 
social/political agenda and the programming is monitored and censored to 
maintain the “official” dogma. I am neither prepared to defend nor oppose 
such criticism, but merely point out that the criticism exists.

Basically, in the U.S.A. it all boils down to this: “If you don’t like it, 
don’t watch it.” There are myriads of alternate choices.

In many other countries the choices are: “Either watch this or nothing.”

Finally, lest you think that this thread has no place on the DJML - please 
note that one’s choice of music is precious to people free to choose. Nazi 
Germany and Soviet repression dealt rather severe blows to jazz.  When the 
authorities start restricting expression it’s time to watch out. Just 
because they’re not coming for you right now doesn’t mean that sooner or 
later they won’t!

Respectfully submitted,

Bill “I like the BBC - but I also like everything else” Gunter
jazzboard at hotmail.com

>From: "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd at btinternet.com>
>To: "Steve barbone" <barbonestreet at earthlink.net>
>CC: jazz <dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com>
>Subject: Re: [Dixielandjazz] Re: Public Broadcasting
>Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:17:25 -0000
>
>I thank my lucky stars for public broadcasting,>>
>
>Hi All,
>In  the UK the BBC is our only publicly funded service in that you have to 
>have a licence to receive TV pictures of any sort. Radio as well for that 
>matter. That money goes to the BBC and they carry no advertising. All other 
>channels , Sky, ITV etc are paid for by advertising. To attract advertising 
>they have to chase the ratings with any sort of trash which will keep the 
>audience watching their channel. Big Brother, I am a Celebrity..,Jerry 
>Springer etc.,
>The BBC on the other hand , freed from the restraints of having to chase 
>ratings (although they do to some extent) can spend the license fee income 
>on producing  first class `classical` drama, music etc,  with a more 
>limited appeal.
>My first encounter with American TV was a shock. Firstly because of the 
>appallingly poor technical level of the picture compared to the UK (this 
>was some years ago and you have now nearly caught up) and secondly because 
>of the frequency of the interruptions of the programme by advertisements.
>Here the amount of advertising shown per hour is limited by law. In the 
>States I found that commercial breaks occurred so often that it was 
>difficult to follow the programme. Also as the denouement of the play, 
>film, whatever, approached, the number of interruptions by advertising 
>increased.
>I watched Clint Eastwoods `Pale Rider` in an American hotel room and by the 
>end of the film there seemed to be `commercial breaks` every two minutes.I 
>can see that in a twisted kind of way this makes comercial sense but it 
>entirely ignores the viewing publics interest and reduces them to shopping 
>fodder. The worst part was at the end of the film when Clint rides away 
>into the sunset. The final fade was approaching and there was yet another 
>commercial break. The film resumed, ran for about 10 seconds and then the 
>credits rolled.Awful!.
>The current license fee is £121. I would happily pay twice that not to have 
>programmes constantly halted by adverts.
>
>Cheers
>
>Pat
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date: 25/02/2005
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Dixielandjazz mailing list
>Dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com
>http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz