I think advertising id one of the worst pollutions we are submitted to.
However, In my opinion, funding networks according to the number of viewers wold have the same effect as advertising: to draw a greater number of viewers, they would broadcast cheap programmes touting the vast public.
By the way, you did not address the problem for the printed press and internet media. "Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char
People tend to express choices that are not as demagogic as what they actually look at. Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
The plan would eliminate the last but keep the first. There is a lot to say for that. After all, the crap on TV is apparently well-watched, and reasonably appreciated by the public at large.
But the big question here is, who will determine the total budget for television?
A lot of the stuff on TV is crap. But in any kind of creative endeavor, the vast majority of product is crap. Funding cultural production really is like the lottery - most of the time you lose, but when you win, you win big, and you can't win if you don't play.
I hardly watch TV these days, being in Japan, but I do miss it at times. American companies, both network and cable, have been producing quite a bit of quality programming lately, in dramas, comedies, and animation. I generally think this is a worthwhile thing for society as a whole. The crappy shows are just something that you have to put up with, both because people are imperfect, and because taste really does differ.
