The airwaves are going digital, so the government is giving out coupons to help people who need them buy converter boxes. Now the program is out of money and the government is looking for more.
But consider, wouldn’t it be a way to help poor people and especially their children if they could no longer watch TV? Studies have shown that children from poverty-stricken families watch far more television than those from more affluent families. They watch TV instead of studying, reading, and pursuing other more valuable activities. Wouldn’t eliminating television be a way of helping the poor?
(I know, I know. They might spend the little money they do have on cable, just to get their TV fix. The kids might leave the house and turn to crime. But still, we would do well to question the assumption that TV is an unmitigated good and that giving poor people more access to TV is somehow helping them.)
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
You are a brave man for posting what is tantamount to cultural heresy.
I also happen to agree with you.
Here is a challenging follow-up question: When does the broadcast content of television–comercials included–reach the point that it is no longer compatible with a Christian home?
There was a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon once that pretty well sums it up for me. (Do you all remember Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Waterson?)
Calvin is sitting at his desk doing his homework and turns to Hobbes.
” ‘Religion is the opiate of the masses.’ What does that mean?”
Cut to the TV behind him, with thought bubble,
“It means Karl Marx hadn’t seen anything yet.”
Great idea. Plus the side effect would be more spending on new TV’s or on the full price conversion boxes for those who just couldn’t do without it. This would help the economy.
Of course, we’re forgetting the even more fundamental question here: why is the government mandating a switch to digital anyway? The costs of updating equipment for stations that have not can be one million or more dollars, which is, of course, a threat to local small businesses in the face of big business. That, and the usual argument that “it’s not the government’s business.”
But, since that question was answered before even being asked, I do not think television is necessarily a positive good for anyone, much less the poor. I do not think it should be subsidized, but only because I don’t think anything for the “poor” should be subsidized. (And should we be calling them “poor” when they can afford television indoors in the first place?) Television had the potential to be a good and new medium of education and communication; democracy immediately degraded it into mediocre, bland, anti-intellectual entertainment. No good for the poor, no good for anyone.
Arthur C. Clarke said(paraphrased): whom the Gods would destroy they first give television.
Why are you talking about the ‘poor’ like they are ignorant children or zoo animals whose lives you have the right to judge?
What about the rich? Don’t they commit all kinds of abuses with their money, not to mention waste a great deal of time and energy pursuing less than valuable activities? When was the last time you advocated government intervention to relieve the rich of some of their extra cash?
Spare me your concern about the ‘poor.’
I can somewhat second Jon’s sentiments. On the other hand (and do not stone me), many in America are poor because 1) they make especially poor spending choices and 2) the government maintains policies that perpetuate [our rather extravagant definition of] poverty.
Furthermore, Jon, you have committed an argumentative fallacy: the fact that both rich and poor “waste” money does not justify one or the other. One topic of discussion here is the injudicious spending choices of the poor, which is bad–indeed, it is especially bad for the poor to waste what little funds they need to live and feed their children. No one here has denied that wasting money–whoever may be guilty of doing it–is wrong.
I will say that it is also wrong to advocate “government intervention to relieve the rich of some of their extra cash.” Aside from the fact that that is utterly unjust and opposed to the very principles of property and right integral in the founding and and crucial to the maintenance of the American republic, you may be interested in knowing that the so-called “rich”–in this case those making $31,987 and above–pay over 96% of the taxes in this country. The top 10%–those making $108,000 and above pay over 70%. I believe the rich–if you can call such people wealthy–are already relieved of plenty of cash, providing a variety of sometimes useful, but usually dubious and counterproductive, services to the poor, including the provision of “converter boxes,” lest our destitute be left bereft of digital television.
So then, we are first not unconcerned about the poor–this entire discussion has been motivated precisely out of concern for the poor and their well-being (and indeed that of anyone who watches too much television), and, second, we are not “judging” the poor by pointing out that disproportionate spending on television and other unnecessary entertainment is unwise for a poor family/individual. Thus, the government is yet again perpetuating poverty.
So, Jon, perhaps a more constructive suggestion would be this: if this money–of which the rich have been so graciously relieved–must be spent at all, why not on more food stamps or something that actually alleviates poverty, instead of television, a habit which has been empirically linked with continued poverty.
Spare me your concern for the poor, please.