Bush admin trying to slowly kill Public Broadcastin

[Johnd]

John I find what PBS puts out useless (except for Big Bird and friends) I'm sorry I still don't see the point why PBS wouldn't succeed as a private enterprise. As for the great programming? It's useless so I don't tune. I find myself watching more and more movies at home. Unfortunately in today's world we need defense more than NPR and PBS, I'd rather keep our ICBMs until the rest of the world gives up theirs (not gonna happen.) I'd rather put the money being wasted on NPR and PBS into Social Security or Medicare where it's needed most, NPR/PBS is a luxury not a necessity, the American public shouldn't be made to pay for entertainment, besides we get plenty of that here at Audioholics and it's free!

Yeah, there are some characters here aren't there!

 

[Rickster71]

I thought PBS got tons of money from Barney The Purple Dinosaur?

In Barney's heyday in 1994, Forbes magazine listed Barney as one of the highest paid entertainers in the country,
raking in an estimated $84 million in royalties and $500 million more from the sale of Barney dolls and trinkets.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

As for the great programming? It's useless so I don't tune.

Since when is entertainment (educational and otherwise) "useful"? By that logic, you might as well give up your AV system, since it serves no practical purpose either.

 

[stratman]

Yeah, there are some characters here aren't there!

This beats PBS/NPR hands down anytime!

The reasons I think that PBS/NPR will actually thrive as a private organization are twofold, for instance let them bring in advertisers, that will get you revenue faster (and without attachments) quicker than The Hill. The capital influx will let you procure/produce original programming that will appeal to a broader base of viewers and I don't mean the drivel passed of as entertainment today. Since you control the content, you're impervious to political machinations, you want to be on the left? Fine. On the right? Fine, but now you can't be slapped around by any party, then you control the course.

 

[Johnd]

Since when is entertainment (educational and otherwise) "useful"? By that logic, you might as well give up your AV system, since it serves no practical purpose either.

Ouch. I think someone's going to get their club.

But you've got a point schmoe. It's use is for entertainment (humor, relaxation, down time...whatever).

 

[Rickster71]

So, if things like PBS get cut.

We'll find out the answer to the question:

"Was there art before Federal funding?"

 

[aberkowitz]

Yes, even if the funding is eliminated they'll still be there, as these channels are supported by viewers like me, who subscribe to Direct TV. As for quality programing in the last 4 years I 've seen two programs that interested me in PBS: "The Race For The JSF", I paraphrased the title, and another in NOVA dealing with tech, I can't remember that one. I just don't see why PBS can't be made a private enterprise without affecting the cash-strapped American public. It would actually benefit PBS.

The whole reason they originally stayed public was to be able to offer commercial-free programming. However these days so many PBS shows are funded by either pre or post show ads, not to mention the few weeks of programming that is lost to pledge drives, that it almost makes sense for them to go private.

 

[Johnd]

This beats PBS/NPR hands down anytime!

The reasons I think that PBS/NPR will actually thrive as a private organization are twofold, for instance let them bring in advertisers, that will get you revenue faster (and without attachments) quicker than The Hill. The capital influx will let you procure/produce original programming that will appeal to a broader base of viewers and I don't mean the drivel passed of as entertainment today. Since you control the content, you're impervious to political machinations, you want to be on the left? Fine. On the right? Fine, but now you can't be slapped around by any party, then you control the course.

Yes, strat, but...

PBS is a private enterprise...they only get about 16% of their money federally.

And perhaps eliminating federal funding could spur new programming in a good way. But maybe not. How about a federal oversight committee to look into that?

 

[stratman]

Since when is entertainment (educational and otherwise) "useful"? By that logic, you might as well give up your AV system, since it serves no practical purpose either.

On the contrary, it's very useful indeed. My A/V system provides relaxation and enjoyment, after a hard day with clients it relaxes me, alleviates tension, therefore allowing me to concentrate on my job, which in turn makes me a more effective worker, earning more money, generating more business, so I can pay my taxes to keep "free" leftist organizations working to lambaste the country that gives them a home. How's that for productivity and practicality?

 

[aberkowitz]

So, if things like PBS get cut.

We'll find out the answer to the question:

"Was there art before Federal funding?"

Lol- there was tons of it... there's a reason so many of the great artists died poor, hungry, and in some cases missing body parts.

 

[stratman]

Yes, strat, but...

PBS is a private enterprise...they only get about 16% of their money federally.

And perhaps eliminating federal funding could spur new programming in a good way. But maybe not. How about a federal oversight committee to look into that?

"Private" they count on donations to augment their "income" from Uncle Sam. If you're to keep it under government control, I'd say an oversight organization will be a must if it is to succeed. I still believe they're much better off on their own, there are so many channels on cable with smaller budgets than PBS/ NPR that generate much more ad revenues, that it makes it almost mandatory for them to go private. The best thing they can do would be to integrate PBS and NPR as single entity and do an MSNBC/CNN type format.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

The whole reason they originally stayed public was to be able to offer commercial-free programming.

Exactly. Ads totally suck. That is why I have given up watching TV entirely. (I watch my favorite TV shows on DVD instead, so that I can see them commercial-free.)

 

[Johnd]

"Private" they count on donations to augment their "income" from Uncle Sam. If you're to keep it under government control, I'd say an oversight organization will be a must if it is to succeed. I still believe they're much better off on their own, there are so many channels on cable with smaller budgets than PBS/ NPR that generate much more ad revenues, that it makes it almost mandatory for them to go private. The best thing they can do would be to integrate PBS and NPR as single entity and do an MSNBC/CNN type format.

Well, a private company can accept donations. Much (in fact, most of their income) of their donations are through their auction...on both sides (the item to be auctioned, and the money paid). So it's not really a donation per se, as one receives an item of value for it.

I don't know. I've seen much better programming on PBS over the past five years or so. I think they are succeeding. As far as talk shows on PBS, I always loved Bill Moyers, I almost always like Charlie Rose, and I like half of Tavis Smiley about half the time.

 

[stratman]

The business model that allowed PBS/NPR to operate has changed dramatically, they won't be able to survive unless they change their old model, they need to be competitive to grow, like any other federally funded program it ends up bloated, inefficient, not meeting it's orginal mission and lastly becoming controversial.

Cut free from government purse string will force them to access a broader customer base, procure adverstising which will drive up revenue as you appeal a broader market. Let's face it, PBS/NPR aren't exactly "hep" or as they say today "hip!"

 

[aberkowitz]

Exactly. Ads totally suck. That is why I have given up watching TV entirely. (I watch my favorite TV shows on DVD instead, so that I can see them commercial-free.)

I agree- but my point was that PBS is no longer ad-free. I remember as a kid in the early 80s that there'd maybe be one or two "special thanks" at the end of a show to the Children's Television Workshop or to Kellogg's (who supported Reading Rainbow) that would last 15-20 seconds TOTAL and then they'd move to the next show.

Now episodes have been shortened and the special thanks have gotten much longer- before you know it the shows will contain product placements. At what point does PBS "jump the shark" for public funding?

 

[Johnd]

The business model that allowed PBS/NPR to operate has changed dramatically, they won't be able to survive unless they change their old model, they need to be competitive to grow, like any other federally funded program it ends up bloated, inefficient, not meeting it's orginal mission and lastly becoming controversial.

Cut free from government purse string will force them to access a broader customer base, procure adverstising which will drive up revenue as you appeal a broader market. Let's face it, PBS/NPR aren't exactly "hep" or as they say today "hip!"

Well, if Lie Detector, Survivor and American Idle (and the oodles of others) are the benchmark of hip, I think PBS is fine remaining square with Moyers and Rose.

Hip? Perhaps not. Unique, revealing one-on-one discussions with leading figures on important topics? Absolutely. Do I think they could use more of that? Absolutely.

 

[stratman]

I agree- but my point was that PBS is no longer ad-free. I remember as a kid in the early 80s that there'd maybe be one or two "special thanks" at the end of a show to the Children's Television Workshop or to Kellogg's (who supported Reading Rainbow) that would last 15-20 seconds TOTAL and then they'd move to the next show.

Now episodes have been shortened and the special thanks have gotten much longer- before you know it the shows will contain product placements. At what point does PBS "jump the shark" for public funding?

Noggin (on cable) has ads for diapers in between segments. They might be experimenting or they see the writing on the wall. I tell you in certain terms they give the Disney kids channel a run for their money. The programming is quite good.

 

[stratman]

Well, if Lie Detector, Survivor and American Idle (and the oodles of others) are the benchmark of hip, I think PBS is fine remaining square with Moyers and Rose.

Hip? Perhaps not. Unique, revealing one-on-one discussions with leading figures on important topics? Absolutely. Do I think they could use more of that? Absolutely.

I agree, mainstream TV is disgusting, and that's putting it mildly. But, PBS/NPR will have to overhaul it's format. Moyers, et al is fine, but you can't survive on that alone, I'd say it would have to be a hybrid of sorts, part Discovery (Nova) part CNN (yes, I'm alluding to their left bias), part C-SPAN (please let's keep the CSPAN to 10% or less, they can lull the most ardent insomniac to sleep), they can partner with a newspaper say The Times like Discovery did, the thing is, there are better ways of running PBS/NPR than the way it's being handled today and I'll say it again, no matter what's a person's political stripe, the American public should not foot the bill for any type of entertainment, whether art, film or broadcasting, it's not right.

 

[Rickster71]

There is a radio station in NYC WBAI 99.5 FM
It's a public station, so we get to pay for stories as the
one I heard about a year and a half ago.:
(A quote) The white man killed Johnny Cochran. (OJ's Dream Team attorney)
They had the cell phone company, turn up the microwaves going to Mr. Cochran'scell phone.
That gave him the brain tumor, he later died from.

I listen once in a while, and they're always doing racist conspiracy theory stuff.

This is what we pay for.

 

[pzaur]

No I didn't. I just recently omitted cable from my repertoire so as to lessen tv viewing time.

PBS is actually broadcast over the open airwaves. Cox only carries 1 of the 4 available PBS stations. I only found that out after I attached an antenna. Noggin is also broadcast over the airwaves. All 5 are in the digital spectrum in Phoenix.

This is really starting to turn into an interesting discussion. I'll have to join later when I have time to read through all the posts and not say something...ummm...in an uninformed manner like "weapons of mass destruction"!

-pat