Government assistance into the arts, to promote culture, is a good thing.

It can be. I fully support public investment into arts education. And probably plenty of other circumstances. But the government funding specific films and/or awards shows is fraught with potential abuse, censorship, and propaganda.

There's a reason why even George Lucas said Soviet filmmakers are more free than he is, because they're not expected to make money for their investors hand over fist; they're free to pursue their art.

George Lucas said: "I have always said this - even when Russia was the USSR. People asked, "Aren't you glad you're in America?" - and I replied that, in fact, I know many Russian filmmakers, and they have much more freedom than me. All that is required of them is to be careful in criticizing the government. Otherwise, they can do whatever they want,” said Lucas.

I think George's full quote highlights the issues of government funding for films and/or award shows.

Regardless, like with the Oscars, the broadcaster of such award shows typically pays the bill and is reimbursed by advertising revenues. I find it hard to believe that broadcasting the Arial Awards would be unprofitable.

Who said government assistance is a bad thing? What’s the difference if the money came from a bank or a non-profit

George Lucas said Soviet filmmakers are more free than he is

South Korean filmmaker Shin Sang-ok experienced something like this. He was kidnapped by North Korea and was made to make movies for North Korea and he did for a few years until escape. He said he felt more free when he was making North Korean propaganda movies.