We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Showtime at the Smithsonian: The opposite of privatization?

The Smithsonian’s entrepreneurial impulse to exploit new media for profit is a healthy one, at root. The Smithsonian is already a quasi-private entity, where most staff is on the public payroll, while most executives are paid with privately solicited donations. It could conceivably, like the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office and the federal student loan agency Sallie Mae, aspire to becoming a self-supporting entity within the government. So of course, the institution is taking a lot of flack for its deal to produce on-demand, for-pay documentaries in conjunction with Showtime. Congress has even joined in, cutting the institution’s funding while citing the high executive pay as an excuse.

The deal is bad, but not for the reasons being stated in editorials. It is bad because of an anti-competitive clause that gives Showtime first-refusal over the ‘right’ to fund documentary projects seeking to use Smithsonian archival material. Far from privatizing the Smithsonian, this makes Showtime a de facto government agency. Forcing documentarians to seek funding from a single source in order to pursue a creative project based on national archival material is an awfully pink concept, and the kind of move that gives privatization a bad name.

2 comments to Showtime at the Smithsonian: The opposite of privatization?

  • Privatization ought to have a bad name – it is in most case, like most political concept-words, the exact opposite of the thing the word usually represents (witness ‘patriot act’ and ‘welfare’ and ‘free trade agreements’, and ‘deregulation’ and on and on and on…). The whole ‘pritivization’ scam int he US at least is exactly that – a scam intended to hoodwink the casual observer of politics (in other words, the voters). Unfortunately, too many thinktanks in the US fall for this sort of shell game, accepting the name as a substitute for the reality. All it teaches is that ‘pritivization’ means less freedom (because of course it has nothing to do with private property), and ‘deregulation’ means higher prices (because of course it’s just re-regulation). I wish to heaven that politically savy people would catch on and reject these government shufflings outright.

  • bach

    I think the idea for this scheme is aimed more at de facto censorship and revisionist history than making money. In the past, several other quasi-governemnt organizations tried similar moves, and got shot down.