Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

PBS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Wolfshead
    Itinerent player of pasteboards
    • Sep 2008
    • 883

    #91
    Read a pretty good editorial today on the Wiener scandal. (Sorry can't link, it was real newsprint) In it the columnist wasdiscussing this, and other scandals, and why they scare him. It had nothing to do with the scandals as such but he felt the attitude that leads to them is what is contributing to the breakdown of our government these days. We all wonder why a guy like Wiener would do such a stupid thing when he had to know it would be found out. The opinion expressed in the column is that he, and other elected officials, are developing feelings of invincibility, that they can get away with anything. While these feelings are leading to the scandals they are also leading to the brinkmanship policy making taking place these days. No one wants to compromise because they don't feel they will get hurt by standing pat. Thus they are willing to see the US default on its obligations or refuse to make concessions in spending rather than get together and pass a budget. It ain't gonna hurt them is their feelings. Unfortunately they aren't learning from these scandals and it may take another major financial collapse before they find out different. Of course the people that keep putting them in office, giving them the feeling of invincibility, will get hurt even worse. Thought it was an interesting POV.
    herb

    Man spends his time on devising a more idiot proof computer. The universe spends its time devising bigger idiots. So far the universe is winning.

    http://www.wolfshead.net/wolfshowl


    http://www.wolfshead.net/books

    Comment

    • Morgan Kane
      Lost in the multiverse
      • Jun 2006
      • 1428

      #92
      In France, the debate was not if the public broadcasting service should receive public money but if it should be allowed to advertise !

      A compromise was reached: it can advertise and get paid for that until 20 h roughly.

      The people for exclusive public founding told that they wanted to make the public service independent from the private companies and to allow it to retire from the race for big audience for a better quality.

      The people against exclusive public funding told that the french state had not enough money to fund the service and that it would have been a big gift for the private broadcasting companies. The told that in fact the governement wanted to kill the public service.

      Curiously, the first party was right wing and the second one left wing.

      It can been explained by the fact that the owner of the major private broadcasting company is a personnal friend of president Sarkozy.

      In fact the public money is collected from a special taxe called " la redevance télévision " amounting to 2 412,40 millions of euros for 2009.

      Advertisement represents only 430, 90 millions.

      One matter is that the level of the tax is determined by the state and this level is judged too low. Incvreasing a tax is never popular.

      It costed 118 euros in 2009 for every homestead not exempted.

      Others countries have similar sytems. In Germany the tax was 215,76 euros for year 2010, with much more contributors.

      one euro = 1, 40 US $ roughly .....

      Comment

      • Guzzlecrank
        Reconstructulator
        • Aug 2009
        • 1234

        #93
        Thanks for the information, Morgan! That public vs. private funding debate--including the problem of conflicts of interest--sounds very similar to debates we've had here in the US for all sorts of social services, including public broadcasting, Social Security and publicly funded health insurance (named Medicare and Medicaid in the US).

        When did that debate about private funding start in France? Shortly after Sarkozy became president?

        For that matter, how long has there been public TV in France?

        *****

        & Thanos & Wolf: the NY Daily News is indicating the Weiner scandal may be nearing a dark, sad close: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...or_perv_p.html

        Comment

        • ThanosShadowsage
          Eternal Companion
          • Dec 2003
          • 666

          #94
          That is great info Morgan. Thanks. We were getting a bit off tack with the Weiner discussion (the conclusion of which doesn't surprise me but is saddening).

          Morgan mentioned left/right wing parties. The context suggests they are the same as they would be in America but is that the case? I'm not sure which countries it applies to but I have heard that some places define left/right wing politics in the reverse of what I (an American) would understand. Is the "right wing" in France conservative?

          If that is the case I'd be interested in knowing why the right wing supports public broadcasting. From an American perspective that would be rather un-conservative. Of course America's corporate media clout might be part of that perspective. I imagine another country would probably want to limit international/American influence in their media (through advertising etc). But that is an uneducated guess... I regret that my perspective is very limited as I have never been out of the states.

          Comment

          • Wolfshead
            Itinerent player of pasteboards
            • Sep 2008
            • 883

            #95
            In New Jersey it seems Gov. Christie, Republican, wants to get rid of the NJ Network, a PBS station and some radio stations considered the one place that people can get NJ information in one place as otherwise Northern Jersey is dependent on NY and southern on Phila for its info. It's a money saving idea. Seems he feels that it's more important to give tax cuts to millionaires than it is to keep the people of his state informed. The TV station is supposed to go to a NY station, I think a PBS one at least and the radio stations to various companies.
            herb

            Man spends his time on devising a more idiot proof computer. The universe spends its time devising bigger idiots. So far the universe is winning.

            http://www.wolfshead.net/wolfshowl


            http://www.wolfshead.net/books

            Comment

            • Morgan Kane
              Lost in the multiverse
              • Jun 2006
              • 1428

              #96
              To answer the questions asked :

              1) Is the "right wing" in France conservative ?

              2) For that matter, how long has there been public TV in France?

              3) Why the right wing supports public broadcasting ?

              4) When did that debate about private funding start in France? Shortly after Sarkozy became president?

              1) Yes in France the right wing is conservative. The cut between right and left was created in France at the time of the french revolution when in the first assembly partisans of an absolute monarchy sit at the right and members of the assembly in favor of a constitutionnal monarchy sit on the left .....

              In the 1870' monarchists were sitting at the right and republicans at the left.

              Nowadays, conservatives sit on the right and " progressists" sit on the left.


              2) French had a long tradition of a strong state and of a centralized power.

              Very roughly :

              http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histoir...fran%C3%A7aise

              Before WWII the television was experimented by the post al service who was state owned. In 1949, it was created as a public service, state owned.

              The first privately owned TV company was Canal + who got a licence for a pay TV in 1984.

              The first channel of the public service was created as a commercial company and 50 % of the shares were sold to a private company in 1987. It must be noted that it was sold to Bouygues who owns a very big company interested in many activities, the foremost being public works.

              The actual chairman of the company, M Martin Bouygues is a personnal friend of M Sarkozy.

              TF1 represented more than 50 % of the market in 1987 and stays dominant.

              3) The public broadcasting service is controlled by the state who chooses the chairmen. Why not support an institution which you control ?

              It must be noted that until M Sarkozy created this system, the chairman was choosen by a committee whose name changed regularly.

              On the other side, by limiting the access of the public service to commercial funding you make it more dependant....... and the commercial adds not streamed by the public service go to the private TV companies, TF1 being the foremost.


              4) The debate about the private funding of the public broadcasting service began in France when commercial adds were accepted on it, in 1968.

              The present reform was inspired to M Sarkozy after he was elected by a friend of him.

              .

              Comment

              • Guzzlecrank
                Reconstructulator
                • Aug 2009
                • 1234

                #97
                Originally posted by Wolfshead View Post
                In New Jersey it seems Gov. Christie, Republican, wants to get rid of the NJ Network, a PBS station and some radio stations considered the one place that people can get NJ information in one place as otherwise Northern Jersey is dependent on NY and southern on Phila for its info. It's a money saving idea.
                Hey Herb, doesn't he also want to privatize the entire NJ public school system now? Can't think of where I saw it, but I remember reading that recently. (Though it could be the ole imagination tricking me again...)

                Comment

                • Wolfshead
                  Itinerent player of pasteboards
                  • Sep 2008
                  • 883

                  #98
                  Originally posted by Guzzlecrank View Post
                  Originally posted by Wolfshead View Post
                  In New Jersey it seems Gov. Christie, Republican, wants to get rid of the NJ Network, a PBS station and some radio stations considered the one place that people can get NJ information in one place as otherwise Northern Jersey is dependent on NY and southern on Phila for its info. It's a money saving idea.
                  Hey Herb, doesn't he also want to privatize the entire NJ public school system now? Can't think of where I saw it, but I remember reading that recently. (Though it could be the ole imagination tricking me again...)
                  He probably would like it but han't gone far enough to propose it yet. He supports vouchers and has taken on the teacher's unions but NJ does have one of the best school systems in the country so screwing with it totally will probably get him in the same situation Ryan is in with his bid to privatize Medicare, some will love it but a great many that benefit from it will rethink their support of him.

                  Anyone who wants to see what privatizion of the Medicare system would be like only has to read my blog to see my fun with the health insurance industry and I can only think that a for profit school system wouldn't be a hell of a lot better. The systems needs changes but not to be put in the hands of the current generation of robber barons.
                  herb

                  Man spends his time on devising a more idiot proof computer. The universe spends its time devising bigger idiots. So far the universe is winning.

                  http://www.wolfshead.net/wolfshowl


                  http://www.wolfshead.net/books

                  Comment

                  • ThanosShadowsage
                    Eternal Companion
                    • Dec 2003
                    • 666

                    #99
                    Robber Barons indeed.

                    This might be a bit too broad for the discussion but what has heralded this influx of pseudo-libertarianism (and by libertarianism I really mean corporatocracy)? A conservative in my area would probably tell me there is nothing different... but there seems to be a very real change in their political agenda in the last decade or so and it isn't just the Tea Party.

                    If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd point to Rupert Murdoch or whomever he takes ques from but I'm sure the situation is more complex than that. Have any political analysts or historians decided to cast a non-bias light on this? Or maybe it is just my youthful inexperience showing? Is this modern political climate less perplexing to you older chaps?

                    Comment

                    • Morgan Kane
                      Lost in the multiverse
                      • Jun 2006
                      • 1428

                      OK, i try ...... and i sum up.

                      Once upon a time, in 1929, there was a financial and industrial crash. It was thought that among the causes of it, figured a too low demand, too much social inquity and speculation.

                      Some decisions were taken. For instance, welfare state, new deal, but also a wall was created beetwen insurance and banking activities, and among beetwen banking activities, financial instutions choosing.

                      The crisis ended with WWII whith the destruction of a big mass of capital and new needs.

                      After WWII, the competion between the so called communist countries and capitalism led this one to try to show that it was socially more efficient than the communist one.

                      Welfare state was extended and a keynesian/ fordist system was set.

                      The result was the 40 glorious yeasr.

                      This ended for many reasons, the gas crisis, the emergency of other countries as industrial ones.

                      The end of the communism system showed that capitalism did not need any more to be social.

                      In the same time conservative think thanks worked and promoted liberalism in economy, the state being seen as the problem, the market as the solution.

                      These were the Reagan/Thatcher years.

                      At this time, the whole financial rules were overthrown, the freee circulation and use of money being seen as a necessary passage.

                      Results were speculation and loss of insustry in western countries. Inequality and pmoverty increased many times.

                      As usual speculation ends in a bubble busting.......

                      But contrary to what happenend in 1929, the solution promoted was not more rules but to let specualtion go on...... States gave money to the banks and these ones went on as if nothing had happenend.

                      In old times, banks existed to finance economy, business and private investments.

                      Now as the mass of money available is much more important than the economy needs it, specualtion is free ...... stock exchanges are prospering ......

                      These changes are not the result of a conspiracy but the result of an ideological consensus of the world leaders......

                      Thatcher used to tell " There is no alternative " and the so called elits believe it and believe it more as they profit from it ......

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X