if you know

You are just being extremely selfish here. What makes chess "worth broadcasting?" As I pointed out, it is entertainment, which is clearly not worth broadcasting if it doesn't entertain very many people. I don't understand your argument at all.

And I'm no fan of capitalism by the way, not even close. But in this instance I cannot figure out why we should broadcast unpopular entertainment over popular entertainment. That just seems incredibly backward, even if you personally don't like what is on TV right now.

Not really a personal attack, I'm making the point that your argument literally comes down to, "I think the crap on TV now is not worthwhile even though the majority of people disagree," which is by definition selfish. I guess it's kind of a personal attack, but I'm not trying to call you a selfish person, just pointing out that you are clearly being selfish on that one.

For what it's worth, I also hate most of the crap that is on TV now, which is why I don't watch it.

Also, that troll pic is hilarious. I've been looking around for this pic of the successful guy (the dude in the business suit breaking the tape at a sprint) with a troll head in the middle of the obvious troll party that said "Obvious yet successful troll is obvious yet successful." Epic pic, but I can't find it.

[COMMENT DELETED]--mine again. I found a troll pic but wasn't exactly what was being looked for.

Barking up wrong trees gets deletion! regarding selfish/unselfish, crappy or creepy; here in U.K.we can cater for all legitimate tastes through our broadcast licence system which includes minority interests to give them a fair share of air and screen time.This concedes that all in life is interesting and valuable and should not simply be "airbrushed" on solely commercial or majority interests Thus the diamonds are preserved to remind us that all is not gold that glitters. May sound sanctimonius folks but is that not the better way to live and let live.?

This one Eebster?

 Now look!!!!!!!!!!! It's at 1,019 replies!

It may not be the same situation in all countries, but in the U.S. most of the channels are commercial businesses.  The programming they run has to have enough viewer interest to generate enough income to, at a minimum, pay for operational expenses, but over the long-term operate as a successful business.  There are a lot of people who would like other types of less popular programming available, but you don't see them ponying up the money that it would cost for the production, satellites, distribution, etc.  Moreover, since what we're talking about is by definition less popular, there wouldn't be much agreement on what should be added.  I'm sure there are some people somewhere that would like some regular programming devoted to collecting antique rotary dial telephones, but unless their numbers exceed a certain value, it's not likely to happen.

Commercial science channels started out with good intentions and programming, but have evolved into so much crap.  Look at The Learning Channel (now just TLC), which started out 30 years ago with wonderful programming on science and nature, history, current events, hobby shows, etc.  Over the years TLC bit by bit replaced good content with reality and paranormal fodder, until in 1998 they finally dropped the word "Learning" from their name, and now they don't even like to acknowledge that the original name was ever a part of their history.  The Science Channel has started down the same road, although it still has some pretty cool stuff.  As a viewer I'm personally disappointed, but I wasn't paying their production costs.  As an investor (hypothetical), I'd rather have them producing shows that have strong viewership.

The exception is public television, which is much as you described as far as ideal content.  No chess that I'm aware of, but because it doesn't have to have enough viewers to cover costs strictly based on programming, it can venture into other areas such as decent documentaries and science shows.  But it's also pretty limited, because there just isn't that much money available from the government and direct public donations.

Do cable companies still provide local access programming?  Someone could set up a local chess program a la Wayne's World, and each week it would be viewed by 8 people and sometimes their Aunt Zelda.

--Cystem

But the production and transmission of channels is extremely expensive.  You're talking like someone else should be willing to shell out that money because you want to watch something, but I don't see you tossing in a few tens of millions of dollars of your own to pay for the programming that you specifically want.  You apparently want someone else to take a loss to cover your interests.

Actually, many people do pay for programs they don't like so that other people can watch them. Many cable and satellite companies bundle programs into several tiers of options. Often, in order to get the channels you want to watch, you're forced to pay for channels you don't want. I'd much prefer an ala carte system where I can choose, and pay for, only the channels I want and let the unpopular channels die a natural death.

Did you not read the portion I wrote regarding public television and the tiny amount of funding it receives?  You only quoted the very first sentence of my original post, and were apparently thrown into too great a tizzy to continue beyond that.

But even with government funding, not every single small interest can possibly be accommodated, even if, like yourself, all of them see their own personal interests as holy and more valuable than the interests of others.  Government funding still doesn't avoid the argument of which programs should be chosen for a limited pool of resources.  In fact, there have been many battles in Congress over the years regarding the content of publicly funded programming.

We're talking past one another here, but you have managed to convince me of one thing-- eebster hit the nail on the head with his "selfish" label.  It is very easy to be generous with someone else's money.

Good point, although I was referring to how one might go about generating funding to produce content that you'd like to have available, but which does not yet exist.  At the extreme, something could be done as strictly a pay-per-view premium, which is sort of a single a la carte option like you proposed.  The rate would still be dependent on the expected number of viewers.  If something costs a million dollars to produce and distribute and only 10 people want it, their cost would have to be $100,000 each just for a the producer to break even.  If you can manage to whip up a million viewers, you can get the price down to one dollar each.

If you can't cover the cost by direct viewer fees, you have to either sell ad space, which means you're now a commercial channel and need a certain level of viewership to attract sponsors, or get money from people who don't want to watch the channel, as either taxes or part of one of those tier packages you mentioned (in which the revenue from the most popular channels helps cover the costs of distributing the less popular channels).

Borg, you are missing the overall point which is that there is no justification for funding unpopular entertainment shows. There may be justification for funding unpopular educational programming, but chess is just a game afterall, and a game that is substantially less popular--especially for watching on TV--than many sports.

thank you borgqueen.

hi borgqueen,i have another question to you and again dont think that i want to go back like my question before.i heard in the news that there is some base of usa is close to iran,and the general of usa said in the news that the missile of their base are too strategic, thats why he give a warning to some people not to go near the base.so my question is what is the meaning of what he said ''its too strategic''.

Well seeing as my point has been brought up at least four times with no answer, I would say you are either missing it or willfully ignoring it. Your "point" is that you think I somehow am supporting capitalism which is so far from the truth it is hilarious. Apparently you wish our taxes (or anything else) would fund your pet projects to the exclusion of other, more popular media for the reason that you think more popular shows are "crap." That is not a good justification.

Suppose I put this another way: No matter what, we can only air a limited selection of shows. Why should we air chess over more popular or more educational programming?

Fine, let me break that post down:

I guess because there is no money in it... programs like "survivor" and "who wants to be the next naked chef basketballer" are much more amusing to the average TV viewer than chess is

This is correct.

so they can make a lot more money from dumb shows than they can from televising chess... and we all know how important the almighty dollar is, so you'll never see things like televised chess being consistenly shown by any television network.

Yes, they make the most money because they have the most viewers. I don't understand how airing the most popular shows is a bad thing. Sure, you can characterize it as "dumb shows vs. chess," but frankly there are even more people who think televising chess is dumb.

I guess in Russia they have a better system than dollar worshipping?  Maybe their government funds the network rather than the tv network being funded by advertising.

Or maybe chess is much more popular in Russia. Oh wait, it is. Or maybe Russia is known for airing propaganda to make its citizens more interested in what Russians are good at. Yeah, they do that, too. The two countries are not at all comparable.

If every chess player wrote a letter to the office of a government funded television network, asking for televised chess and they kept doing it repeatedly, perhaps then we might see some results... but it will never happen on privately owned channels.

It would only work if the fanbase were large enough. Letters would help demonstrate that, but it would need to be lots of them. An even more important indicator would be a successful pilot. Trust me, if people wanted to watch chess, they would air it.

OK, I reread your post for the fourth time. Where do you explain why the government should air chess? All I see is you lamenting the fact that it is not popular. Well it isn't; deal with it.

As for the point about capitalism . . . what do you think all the "almighty dollar" crap is about? Here is an interesting post:

"Can nobody see past the acquisition of wealth thing?   

"Have you ever stopped to ask yourself WHY it is so expensive to create a chess program and broadcast it?

"Have you ever tried to imagine running a society without having a focus on the hoarding of wealth??

"I guess that is too far "out there" for some minds to consider!"

Nope, nothing about capitalism in there. Or how about this one:

"Exactly the problem.  Waaaaaaayyy too much focus on the almighty dollar.  IMO that's the sickness that will be the end of us all!"

Or most significantly, your "response" to my post:

"Small market...  Exactly my point. Too much emphasis on money these days.  It's sad. 

"Just because it doesn't make lots of money doesn't mean it's not worth broadcasting.  Only the stupid almighty dollar worshipping philosophies say otherwise."

Yeah, nothing in there indicates I support capitalism.

In fact, the only arguments you have made the entire time are:
A) We focus too much on making money. Instead we should focus on stuff I like.
B) The programs on TV today are dumb. Chess is less dumb.
C) You just don't understand my point, so I won't try to explain it.

This is not how to argue.

Post 998 does indeed say it all. We in the UK must have a state licence, like a car licence, to watch TV.! This funds the basic government programmes which are therefore supposed to cater for all legitimate tastes at least occasionally,thus able to include those that are ignored by commercialism/capitalism . Commercial stations funded by advertising also exist side by side with our B.B.C.( governed) programmes. So there is a wide choice , including the choice to turn off the set if you don't like the content....Unfortunately since  both systems are run by mortals there are many faults which take a lot to endure before there is a cure. Currently our BBC  has gone mad with musical accompaniments fitted between or backgrounded in almost every programme and it is simply awful,  fashionably going  back to the days of silent film accompanied by tinkle tonk on piano.

Aha!  'tis possible to try the patience of BorgQueen.  I really was beginning to believe you weren't human. 

I think that Eebster's mistake may have been failing to add "I await again your response" to the end of his posts.

I concede that it is impossible to have an argument with you when everything I say is met with, "You are an idiot; no explanation needed."