The two attached articles (by Jonathan Kay and by Matt Gurney) contain arguments in favour of publicly-funded TV and (particularly) radio in Canada; that is, the CBC in all its glory. One surprising aspect of these articles is their source: columns in the National Post, hardly a bastion of support for state-funded anything. Both argue that the CBC provides a valuable service, although they differ as to how that service might be best funded.
A very standard argument from Public Economics asserts that public broadcasting is a public service in the Samuelsonian sense, and so will be underfunded if left to survive on private voluntary donations. (A look to our south might provide some evidence here: I am sure that WQLN-Erie now devotes more hours to selling crappy cds than to actual programming.) This argument ignores the fact that for-profit broadcasters provide (similar?) services funded through advertising, which in turn ignores the fact that said private broadcasting industry seems to be getting less profitable by the minute. The private TV stations in Detroit now broadcast a lot of 'paid programming' (hey, there Cindy...) every day.
All this generates a number of specific issues: Is there a good argument to be made in favor of a tax-supported 'News' and 'Public Affairs' broadcaster (particularly in the so-called Internet age)? If so, should it be - in Gurney's sense - elitist? Is the value of this service seriously diminished by the presence of advertising? And, perhaps most important of all - why is Jeopardy on CBC (and not Cash Cab)?
See you at the FUBar.
