>No. But public education and public radio are not the same thing, nor
>do they have the same goals. NPR had at one time early on, a heavy
>educational goal. Public television still has that goal fairly well
>in place as far as I can see, but radio has changed.
>It is, primarily, an entertainment medium, albeit a somewhat more
>sophisticated one than network or cable broadcasting. That entertainment
>is paid for in large portion by either corporate grants or pledges from
>individuals. As for the corporations, their goal is to use their
>charitible dollars in the way that best satisfies their clients and
>shareholders, and therefore, they in the long run are a voice that
>reflects the public's tastes.
>So, I say again, since the public pays for public radio, they should get
>what they want.
I have just peeked into this thread and so please forgive me if I repeat
something already said.
Isn't network radio and cable already giving most of the public what it
wants? On the rare occasions I traverse the radio dial, I wonder how
much of the same thing the public really needs. Not that it's any of
my business. If the stuff sells, it sells.
That said, I see nothing wrong with the government spending $point 100
zeros or whatever to preserve an art(s) that a niche of the public wants
and which cannot easily or reasonably be supplied by private enterprise.
One of the myths of private enterprise is that it can meet all needs or
the needs of all the people. It cannot and does not. I see nothing
wrong with govenrment, theoretically of and by the people, supplying
worthwhile needs to a minority that wants them and otherwise pays its
way in this society.