3 ms·
Just about everyone uses roads, hospitals, and enjoys the security provided by armed forces (for example, the OP apparently has a computer or smart phone, which
by Turing_Machine 5y ago
Just about everyone uses roads, hospitals, and enjoys the security provided by armed forces (for example, the OP apparently has a computer or smart phone, which I'm betting traveled on a road for some part of its journey from the factory to him, and which I'm betting relied on the implicit security provided by military forces to prevent it being hijacked on the way).
Broadcast television is at an entirely different level of the Maslow hierarchy. It's quite possible to lead a productive and enjoyable life without consuming broadcast television at all, much less one particular channel of broadcast television.
- dijit 5y agoYou make decent points but I'm not entirely sure I buy this line of reasoning. A significant bulk of BBC funding seems to go into news and education, an educated and informed population is generally better for everyone. Could we live without entertainment TV such as Eastenders? Probably, though it can often serve a purpose in education such as (poor) representation of schizophrenia and suicide which can point people (and their family&friends) to helplines for getting adequate support. Entertainment TV maybe also lends credibility to the idea that the BBC isn't just "boring" stuff like PBS might be considered in the USA, and thus people might be more inclined to engage with the content. I'm speculating, but even when I view the BBC coldly I don't see it as being as black and white as all that, I would say the net contribution to society is so high that you would feel it's effects even if you don't directly engage with it.