Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:10:00 EST
From:         I am the sacrificial butter <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject: re: bbanning political ads

>In re: my objections to free airtime for broadcasters
>>******************************************************
>>
>>        well, i wouldn't expect the tv stations or the networks to
>>        pay a disproportionate amount of money for this.
>Depends what you mean by "disprportionate", but if you mean "my plan
>doesn't shift the burden onto broadcasters", then in that your plan
>would be rare among such plans.  Ordinarily that is *exactly* what
>people mean.

        i am not ordinary people :)

>>        actually, i expect that there are 2 ways this could be implimented
>>        1) using the networks and independant broadcast stations.  in this
>>        case, i think that it would be reasonable to require the companies
>>        to charge only the cost of broadcasting (including salaries, etc.)
>>        and that this cost would be covered through tax money that would
>>        be specifically set aside for this purpose.
>
>That's like saying that you'll shut down one of the currently operating
>airlines for a day, let the presidential candidates use them, and then
>pay them for fuel.  You're depriving them of a day's worth of
>*revenue*, revenue which goes to cover all of their costs of doing business,
>from the broadest overhead to the cost most specifically associated with
>the project at hand.  Broadcasters can't afford to give up massive
>chunks of their advertising time, even if you do pay the costs which are
>most directly related to the production.  It's *time*, not camera crews,
>that costs money.

        no. it would have to cover ALL their costs, but not include
        profit.  yes, the companies would have to give up their profits
        for a small amount of time for the good of the nation.
        "ask not..."  but on the other hand, i don't see why advertisment
        would be illegal : "and now, back to the LaRouche/ Quayle debate,
        but first a message from Prell Toothpaste and Foot Ointment..."

>>        2) have a separate politics network which  would be broadcast
>>        everywhere that normal tv is.  this would be a non-profit
>>        organization which would provide both news coverage and equal
>>        broadcast time for  all candidates.  it would also be funded
>>        by the government (the taxpayer).
>>

>Oh, hell, if that's all you mean then fine... altho' I'd even question whether
>you need the taxpayers.  C-Span is privately funded.  If all you want to
>do is set up a private cable service, not interfere with the operations
>of other broadcasters whose lifeblood is *not* their good deeds, then
>go for it.  I'd be surprised if more people watch it than watch C-SPAN,
>altho as a politics-geek I watch the latter and would be inclined to
>watch the former.
>
>Jacob.

        if "the masses" don't watch it, thats their problem.  our problem
        is to try to create fairer, cheaper campaigns and do our best
        to produce forums for intelligent political debate that is
        readily available to everyone on their favorite image-producing
        machine.  more info for more people is the goal.  this is the
        best way that i have thought of.  if anyone has a better plan,
        i would be happy to hear it.  if anyone is opposed to educating
        the american people about the leaders which they are so unwilling
        to bother voting for because they know nothing about them is
        not going to like this plan.

        brni

        "You can't fool all of the people all of the time, so
        breed them for ignorance." -- r. rayguns.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU