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