Peter Harzem writes:

>I write on cultures, survival of cultures, etc.  and I am supposed to be
>reasonably informed about such matters.  But I do not know the answers to
>these questions. [why no such thing as BBC3 in USA] Any suggestions?

I think it has to do with the lack of a national network this is
independently (gov't?) financed that is dedicated to "high culture" and
will pursue it on the grounds that it is good and important, even if not
popular.

The name of the game in radio, Tv and films is always the maximum number
of ears or eyeballs.  And that imperative asserts itself no matter how
well intentioned the original purpose of the enterprise.  NPR used to be
more eclectic, more intellectual and more daring in its programming.  But
lack of financing from gov't and other foundations has led to listener
sponsorship, and so the push for the greatest number of listeners
regardless of content imperatives is well under way, with predictable
consequences: less challenging, less risky, less new, less intellectual.
Talk radio is fine, esp.  interviews and call-in shows dealing with the
latest news and atrocities.  But an evening (or even a couple of hours) to
a serious lecture or debate -- hey, if it ain't a sound bite, it won't play
in (you name the city).

Look at what happened with cable TV.  It was supposed to be the hope of
minority interest programming, where all sorts of niche programming could
flourish in the plethora of channels.  But channel owners and producers
discovered very quickly that it costs the same to produce a one hour
program that gets 1000 viewers as one that gets 1,000,000 - and there's
more (advertising) money to be made from the latter to cover the costs.
Result, proliferation of SOS (same old s...).  The buck counts, if it's
private entrepreneurship driving programming.  Even Bravo, the channel of
the arts now has slews of commercials interrupting fine programming with
maddening frequency, making the whole thing absolutely unwatchable.  I
don't understand those who run this -- do they really think the audience is
passive enough to put up with "we interrupt this speech from King Lear to
bring you six more commercials for Mercedes, Infinity and Lexus?" European
commercial tv has survived for decades with commercials bunched between the
programs.

Also, I do thnk there is a serious strain of "anti-intellectualism" in
American society, and not just in politics.  (Richard Hofstetter, where
are you when we need you most?) I would hazard the guess that 99.9% of
conversations in business situations that do not deal with the business
subject at hand will revolve around sports.  Interest in cultural matters
is non-existent, and you risk being the office weirdo if you talk about
a classical concert or a book that is not a mystery or best-seller.  My
experiences with colleges and academicians suggests that for the most part
things are no better or more intellectual there.  Breadth of interest is
probably highly suspect, as is any real life experience that does not
conform to some prof's latest pet theory.

I doubt if this answers all the questions you have, but here's one
skeptic's viewpoint.  Let me point out that the BBC's reign in this
cultural arena is at times also precarious, and the thread's discussion
of how the "drang nach ears" nearly did in the serious programming shows
the alarming powerof Gresham's Law.

Eric
(who might have given up except for Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, et. al.,
....and Richard Feynman!)