Privatize the Atlasian National Broadcaster Act (Debating)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I basically agree with Leinad. If we're going to privatize the ANB, we shouldn't be accepting any offers before all interested parties have had a chance to make their bids.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Is there any palpable difference between the ANB and PBS? I agree with what Blair and Polnut said, but I don't see why we need two public broadcasters.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I can see advantages in both approaches. A simple repeal is... well, simpler and avoids the possibility that Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore types would gain a platform built on taxpayer dollars. Privatization, on the other hand, would result in greater budget flexibility, as we'd have the money that would have gone to the ANB plus the price of the sale.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Surely this is the type of thing we should contact Enduro about- the GM has the power to decide if PBS exists

I believe he confirmed this a while back, but I can't seem to find the post...

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

PBS does not exist unless a previous GM has used it for a plot device.

I see; thanks, Enduro! In that case, I must agree with Blair that the federal government should retain at least partial ownership of the ANB.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It's blatantly ridiculous to think that the private sector is literally so incapable of running television that we need to get government, of all things, involved.

This really isn't the point, though. No-one is question Ted's ability to run an excellent news corporation, or the competence of the private sector in general. The purpose of the ANB, as I understand it, is to (a) provide unbiased, nonpartisan analysis of current events; and (b) to feature artistic and educational programing that, while perhaps not a money-making venture, forms a significant part of our collective culture and heritage. I believe it makes sense for such an organization to be owned publicly and managed by the representatives of the people, in the same way that I believe it makes sense for the Smithsonian or the National Parks Service to be owned and managed publicly. You may disagree with this philosophy, but it is not "ridiculous," any more than privatization or faith in the private sector is "ridiculous."

I have far more trust in the private sector, people whose jobs are on the line based on how successful they are, making good television than I do in bureaucrats with cushy jobs on the taxpayer's dime.

This is more a cliche than anything else. As someone who, in real life, must regularly tangle with incompetent private sector insurers, utility companies, and phone providers, and who sometimes has the pleasure of dealing with efficient and helpful government workers, I can testify that the private sector does not have a monopoly on wisdom and the government does not have a monopoly on incompetence. Obviously, there are inefficient and absurd government agencies, but there are inefficient and absurd agencies in the private sector, too. We don't want to paint everybody with the same brush.

I think that Nyman has provided pretty neutral coverage: despite my own leanings, I've tried to present things in a balanced way, and I hope that shows. However, I'd been planning on bringing Laborites on board anyway, and I hope that (if it works out) it'll assuage some of your concerns.

Speaking as a Laborite, I quite agree that Nyman Weekly is excellent. If we decide to sell all or part of the ANB, I'm in favor of you getting it; I just want to be sure that such is the right step to take.


Tomorrow, I intend to read through the ANBB to see just how the National Broadcaster differs from its real-life counterpart, PBS. From reading the GM's reports, it seems that the ANB does not broadcast scripted programming (so, no Downton Abbey); I'm be interested to see what other programming and administrative differences there are. It may be that it would be advisable to privatize parts of the ANB so as to make more appropriate use of it.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Senators have twenty-four hours to object to Leinad's amendment.

Basically, why does the government need to do this?

Because the first job of private enterprise is to turn a profit, whereas the purpose of the ANB is to place quality of programing above all other considerations. Private media outlets like CNN have to prioritize profit (and therefore ratings) above all else in order to survive - there's nothing wrong with that, that's how the free market is supposed to work. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, this is a model that works pretty well for both the producer and the consumer; the problem is that sometimes cultural value does not transfer into the world of financial gain. A publicly-owned ANB is not dependent on market forces, so it can prioritize quality even at the expense of profit.

Consider the real-life presidential election: no-one can deny that Donald Trump is doing a good job winning votes (the political equivalent of TV ratings), but his policy proposals are vapid and, in some cases, divorced from reality. If Trump were a TV station, he would be doing very, very well - but sometimes, we need a "low energy" source that gives only the facts and puts substance above mass appeal.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

In that case, a vote is now open on Leinad's amendment. Please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain. Voting will last 72 hours or until a majority has been reached.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

NAY.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The Amendment has been adopted.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I motion for a final vote (I think I'm doing this right ).

You've been doing fine. Technically, the correct motion at this stage would have been for cloture: motions for final votes may only be entered if debate has stalled for at least 36 hours. As cloture requires a 2/3 majority to pass, it's usually better to wait 36 hours and then make the motion.

Since it's clear what you were trying to do, I'm going to interpret this as a motion for cloture (correct me if I'm wrong). Senator Blair has objected, so we will now proceed with a cloture vote. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. A 2/3 majority is required for the motion to be adopted. Voting will last 72 hours or until all Senators have voted.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Abstain

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

By a vote of four Ayes, one Nay, and one Abstention, the motion for cloture was not approved by two thirds of the total body of sitting senators* and has therefore FAILED.

*Yeah, I know, it's weird. Technically, though, the Rules define a two thirds majority as "two thirds of the sitting senators" rather than "two thirds of the voting senators." This is why it's almost always better to wait until debate has died before calling for a final vote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The chair notes the motion to table and reminds the Senate that two seconders are required to advance the motion.