although in some cases, like the National Film Board of Canada, PBS, or the BBC, it can put on great stuff that my not have any immediate commercial potential. Still, these are isolated cases, and I wouldn't want the government to get involved except as a minor player. Commercial media is the way to go, since they are ultimately responsible for pleasing the audience or they will go broke.

The problem is that art has traditionally been patronized by rich individuals or organizations, sometimes organizations with an agenda, like the Borgias or the Popes. Sometimes of these people actually have taste, and are interested in advancing their own prestige and the result can be a Michelangelo. When artists could afford their own media, (like Shakespeare) they could run their own businesses and compete in the marketplace. Maybe the internet can help, as artists can comandeer their own means of distributing their product.

But the "patrons" now are corporations who are interested in nothing but selling advertising, and the advertisers can only think of how many eyeballs they can buy with their buck. With this mentality financing an art that is primarily directed towards reaching people who can be easily sold crap, and with a deathly fear of offending anyone, the audience being reached is the lowest common denominator.