[merraksh]

Long debates about philosophy might not have been what the public wanted, but BBC bosses thought they were good for us.

I think a form of education is one of the primary purposes and responsibilities of a country's national TV. Managing a broadcaster so that it gives the public what it wants, rather than what's better for them, is akin to giving kids fries and coke all day, because that's what they want.

[jstanley]

Actually, no.

The public are grown adults who are perfectly capable of deciding what we want for ourselves, thank you very much.

[ItsMe000001]

It seems to me that not a lot of thought and introspection was put into that comment, because I highly doubt you have that same benign attitude towards everyone. I'm sure there are plenty of stories about what people think/say/do that make you take a different position. For example, just today I read a story about a man who murdered his wife - with the son in between, and he pushed the knife through the boy to hurt the wife. But the problems were there long before, and such people exist aplenty. It's easy to be satisfied with everybody and their choices only for as long as you don't get to know them all too closely...

I doubt there is a single person that really benevolently accepts what each and every person does/says/thinks. Except maybe my late grandmother, who probably never raged about anyone in her entire life.

[throwawayjava]

I think this issue is a bit subtler. Month to month viewership statistics are not the same as an explicit ballot.

Grown adults consistently reveal preferences that are different from their stated preferences.

In other words, people may lose what they really want by voting against it with their eyeballs and pocket books. Even when they woukd vote for it in an explicit ballot.

"I would prefer to eat healthy, but ice cream is just so much better tasting than broccoli."

One check on this is a regulator who imposes the choices for you based on your stated preferences, which is a check that grown adults often choose to add to their lives. Dieticians and personal trainers are popular for a reason.

[briandear]

Assuming the “public” is equal to “children.” A bit arrogant to suggest that. Adam Smith suggests that people will always act in their own self interest; perhaps advanced philosophical knowledge doesn’t have the same utility to normal people. The attitude that the public doesn’t know what’s good for them is disgusting; it’s the very core of the nanny state.

However, I will concede that many people would consume a healthier diet of entertainment of it were available. But suggesting that people need to have broadcasters or governments to be parents of an ignorant citizenry smacks of the same though patterns condemned in the book 1984.

[DaiPlusPlus]

> The attitude that the public doesn’t know what’s good for them is disgusting; it’s the very core of the nanny state.

It’s very demonstrable though - it’s why practically every country has an equivalent to US Social Security - and why most democracies are Representative instead of Direct.

Your argument would have more strength if the BBC or national arts funds operated in a vacuum - but they exist in competition with other private, profit-driven organisations. I feel it’s important that the public get exposure to programming that commercial sponsors (and thus network-execs/channel directors) wouldn’t touch. And it’s also essential for unbiased (or as close to unbiased as we can get) broadcast journalism.

(I accept that when a “Premium”-service customer base is large enough, e.g. HBO-sized, the need for state funding is minimised - I think HBO in particular is in a good place to launch a US-based, commercial-free broadcast news service - but smaller countries and markets would definitely need to employ some form of state funding to ensure editorial independence and an informed populace - which can only be good for democracy)

[soneil]

I think it was perhaps poorly worded, but I have to agree with the spirit.

Contrast bookshops vs libraries. We expect the state to provide libraries, not bookshops. Not because we think bookshops are bad, but because we believe libraries should exist despite not being commercially viable.

The state broadcaster (in our case, the BBC) should be providing the library, not the bookshop. Not because "we know what's good for them", but because there's hundreds of commercial channels to "give them what they want".

[LifeLiverTransp]

Is it that arrogant? The public are children - and so are theire masters and various Lichtgestalten.

Every article on neurology, every new app hacking that legacy eletric-jellyfish proofs it.

The dignity and rights we got, are not because we are some sort of superior beeings, but because we all together decided to turn the eyes away from the mess and give even the most primal beeing, sitting in a cardbord box near the train station, rights and respect, disregarding of birth, status, accomplishment and intellect.

The debate is not about wether we the people need behavioural checks and balances, the questions is how to prevent those enforcing and enacting them from doing that with similar runaway retardations. I have no answer to that.

[sykh]

The public, the great mass of humanity, does not always know what’s good for them. They often times do dumb things, allow irrational fear to take over, or engage in senseless mob activity. In the U.S. there are great numbers of people who decry taxation as theft but want roads to be fixed. A balance is needed. We need learned people in charge who are not too selfish and where too much power is not too concentrated.

[badosu]

It's not like all channels are obligated to perform as dictated.

So, for a free, subsidized public channel, it makes a lot of sense to offer something different from the commercial crap.

I learned a lot watching public funded science divulgation material.

[magduf]

You think an angry mob of adults with pitchforks and torches knows what's best for them?