Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxh!mhuxi!mhuxm!mhuxn!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!esco
From: esco@ssc-vax.UUCP (Michael Esco)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Corp. for Public B'cast (Testament)
Message-ID: <240@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Dec-84 19:49:54 EST
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.240
Posted: Tue Dec  4 19:49:54 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Dec-84 04:44:48 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA
Lines: 28

The showing of `Testament' on PBS last week reopened an old wound of mine.
For those of you who aren't familiar with the film, it concerns the effects
of a nuclear war on a small California town. I saw this film during its
theatrical release and was suprised to see in the credits that it was
funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The explanation I heard
was that CBP hoped that monies received would offset the production costs
of what essentially was a made-for-TV movie.

This, to me, raises several pertinent issues about the activities of the CPB.
First, what right does a government-funded agency have to be in the
commercial film industry, investing tax dollars to compete with legitimate
private enterprises? Will the department of agriculture open a chain of 
fast-food places next? Second, why is a government-funded agency spending tax
dollars on an overtly political film? Will they be producing the sequel
to `Red Dawn' to balance the scale? Thirdly, why should there be a CPB at
all---or a National Endowment for the Arts for that matter. What business
is it of government to fund `art' that the majority of people would find
of questionable value?

My opinion is that the federal government should not be paying for
entertainment for a minority of citizens. Given the audience of PBS and
other NEA outlets, this is nothing more than a welfare for the well-to-do.
The art forms favored by the majority of taxpayers (movies, video,
various popular musics, etc) don't need tax subsidies, they pay for themselves.
So should the rest.
					       Michael Esco
					       Boeing Aerospace
					       ...!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!esco