Bush admin trying to slowly kill Public Broadcastin

[aberkowitz]

I was curious so I checked out PBS' financial statements for 2007. This company is clearly no longer being run as a simple non-for-profit that puts on television programming. First of all- they "made" $101 million in 2007, an increase from $81 in 2006, and as of year-end they are actually sitting on $28 million in excess cash. When you include short-term investments (E.g. money markets and maturing bonds) and cash equivalents, they have over $115 million in cash on hand. Remember, this is a company with tax-exempt status... every dollar of expense they cut goes directly to adding to their net assets.

They also have another $190 million in investments (long term bonds and equities), against a grand total of $20 million in debt and $12 million in future lease obligations (which gets marked as a liability).

The only restriction they have is that a number of their assets come with earmarks- meaning they have to be used specifically for programming, technology, specific types of shows, etc. However since 90-95% of their expenses are classified as "programming", it doesn't seem that hard to meet these "restrictions".

From a financial standpoint, this organization is doing remarkably well and certainly doesn't look or act like most non-for-profit organizations that you'll see on a regular basis. If I was reviewing this budget from a government standpoint (looking solely at financials and their mission statement), I absolutely would question the amount of federal funding that they get and whether it could be trimmed. This company has been very well-prepared for a long time against a cut of federal funding, seems like they've expected it, and the company is financially run to be independent of it. I'm not surprised that they would be on the list to have funding cut... they are almost TOO well run!

 

[stratman]

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.

Unfortunately, in order to create better "ratings," they resort to these types of ridiculous programming. It'll be so much better for them to go private, problem is, then they'll have to "work." No more free lunch from Uncle Sam!

 

[stratman]

I was curious so I checked out PBS' financial statements for 2007. This company is clearly no longer being run as a simple non-for-profit that puts on television programming. First of all- they "made" $101 million in 2007, an increase from $81 in 2006, and as of year-end they are actually sitting on $28 million in excess cash. When you include short-term investments (E.g. money markets and maturing bonds) and cash equivalents, they have over $115 million in cash on hand. Remember, this is a company with tax-exempt status... every dollar of expense they cut goes directly to adding to their net assets.

They also have another $190 million in investments (long term bonds and equities), against a grand total of $20 million in debt and $12 million in future lease obligations (which gets marked as a liability).

The only restriction they have is that a number of their assets come with earmarks- meaning they have to be used specifically for programming, technology, specific types of shows, etc. However since 90-95% of their expenses are classified as "programming", it doesn't seem that hard to meet these "restrictions".

From a financial standpoint, this organization is doing remarkably well and certainly doesn't look or act like most non-for-profit organizations that you'll see on a regular basis. If I was reviewing this budget from a government standpoint (looking solely at financials and their mission statement), I absolutely would question the amount of federal funding that they get and whether it could be trimmed. This company has been very well-prepared for a long time against a cut of federal funding, seems like they've expected it, and the company is financially run to be independent of it. I'm not surprised that they would be on the list to have funding cut... they are almost TOO well run!

Great info Adam, so they're probably seeing the writing on the wall and are making a transition. I had no idea they were so cash flushed! Wow! Now it really puts it into perspective, you're 100% correct it's very well managed, they have the capital to go private and issue an IPO! Unreal, the way they cry they make taxpayers believe they're about to be closed down by the evil republicans, my oh my what a wonderful story we weave!

 

[Tomorrow]

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.)

How do you know which are your favorite shows (and want to buy them on DVD) if you "have given up watching TV entirely"?

 

[pzaur]

Interesting that we all associate public broadcasting with PBS and NPR. They are the two largest "entities" that we see, but not the only ones. I probably mis-labeled the title for this thread and should have used "Corp. for Public Broadcasting" instead of just "public broadcasting".

This company is private. They even state that on the opening page:
"A private corporation funded by the American people."
No way to hide behind that statement. But, to be honest, aren't all corporations that are private and doing business in the U.S. funded by the American people?

The other question is how many of the corporations are given grants in other means. Tax exemptions, tax refunds, tax breaks. All other terms for a "grant". The government also gives out labeled grants to most major corporations for projects the government deems worthy.

The major difference between public broadcasting and other major corporations is that the major corporations sell products that we can physically hold or use. Not just information. Profits are generated by those physical items. Citizens don't want to pay for their news. All the OTA channels are broadcast free via air and cable. We don't "pay" for those stations. They're funded by all the commercials. The only channels we actually pay for are ones not available over the air

Sure, public broadcasting could go to having ads during shows. Then you have to ask yourself, how often do you switch the channel when that happens? This corp. is trying to do as much without interruption as possible. The government grant goes a great distance in allowing this.

I would venture to say that this corporation funds a lot of smaller, local projects that we don't even think about or just take for granted.

As was stated earlier, would their be art(s) without the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the government funding?

-pat

 

[pzaur]

Interesting that we all associate public broadcasting with PBS and NPR. They are the two largest "entities" that we see, but not the only ones. I probably mis-labeled the title for this thread and should have used "Corp. for Public Broadcasting" instead of just "public broadcasting".

This company is private. They even state that on the opening page:
"A private corporation funded by the American people."
No way to hide behind that statement. But, to be honest, aren't all corporations that are private and doing business in the U.S. funded by the American people?

The other question is how many of the corporations are given grants in other means. Tax exemptions, tax refunds, tax breaks. All other terms for a "grant". The government also gives out labeled grants to most major corporations for projects the government deems worthy.

The major difference between public broadcasting and other major corporations is that the major corporations sell products that we can physically hold or use. Not just information. Profits are generated by those physical items. Citizens don't want to pay for their news. All the OTA channels are broadcast free via air and cable. We don't "pay" for those stations. They're funded by all the commercials. The only channels we actually pay for are ones not available over the air

Sure, public broadcasting could go to having ads during shows. Then you have to ask yourself, how often do you switch the channel when that happens? This corp. is trying to do as much without interruption as possible. The government grant goes a great distance in allowing this.

I would venture to say that this corporation funds a lot of smaller, local projects that we don't even think about or just take for granted.

As was stated earlier, would their be art(s) without the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the government funding?

I wonder how many other companies get funds in similar amounts from the government? Public Broadcasting always seems to come up as a scapegoat every year and yet the government finds ways to take the funds that would have been allocated and send the funds to another project that truly is bacon in the frying pan.

-pat

 

[Tomorrow]

This discussion is boiling down to the identical common denominators as other political threads here on AH. There are those who trust government and want more of it to control their lives (and probably want more of what the "Haves" have, as well.). And then there are those that don't trust the government and would like fewer restrictions and demands upon their freedoms (and earnings). Please note that it was the latter attitude that spurred the Revolution that gave birth to this country.

It seems ne'er the twain shall meet.

 

[chadnliz]

Well aslong as NPR stays far left in its views and coverage they will always have an enemy in the right. If it is PUBLIC radio and sponsered with tax dollars they should be nuetral, but they are not so screw em'. Yep I support Bush, the Republican party so SUCK IT!
I do enjoy some public radio, mostly the Classical music but I can survive without it.

 

[highfihoney]

And now for something completely different.

http://www.kaotic.com/3528_Shaolin-Monks-Train-Their-Nuts.html

 

[stratman]

Pat,

NPR/PBS are making profits, just read Aberkowitz post, unlike a regular corporation, we pay for it's existence. We use products from AVS, Denon and the like, we support them by buying, but if we stop buying they don't exist. On the other hand PBS/NPR goes on whether we support them or not through our tax dollars, that allows them to do what they want as they want, hey if I pay your bills I have a right to your programming, it's only fair. Now if you pay your way....que sera, sera. There was always art and there will always be art without government intervention. I pay Direct TV through choice, that's why I don't have access to their programming, I don't have a choice with NPR/PBS I'm being "forced" to pay for something I don't want. That's the difference, one is a product (Direct TV) one is an obligation(NPR/PBS.)

 

[pzaur]

Stratman - I agree with your post, save for one thing. We all are paying for corporations through the government. They're just not called grants. Instead, we give them enormous tax breaks.

I wouldn't be surprised if the tax breaks given to many large corporations is equal to the amount of funding from the US government and the tax exemption given to the Public Broadcasting.

The difference between Public Broadcasting is that they are obligated to make public their financial statements and large private corporations are not. Corporations that do make them public do so for their shareholders.

As for the left leaning bent to public broadcasting...is it really because they support the left or because the left takes the most advantage of public broadcasting? And, is it really there or just perceived?

Personally, I only use NPR for kbaq and kjzz (after 7pm), classical and jazz music.

-pat

 

[stratman]

Stratman - I agree with your post, save for one thing. We all are paying for corporations through the government. They're just not called grants. Instead, we give them enormous tax breaks.

I wouldn't be surprised if the tax breaks given to many large corporations is equal to the amount of funding from the US government and the tax exemption given to the Public Broadcasting.

The difference between Public Broadcasting is that they are obligated to make public their financial statements and large private corporations are not. Corporations that do make them public do so for their shareholders.

As for the left leaning bent to public broadcasting...is it really because they support the left or because the left takes the most advantage of public broadcasting? And, is it really there or just perceived?

Personally, I only use NPR for kbaq and kjzz (after 7pm), classical and jazz music.

-pat

The only difference being, that if private corporations don't produce they die, tax break or not. Whereas "public" corporations continue, whether or not they produce. The former adds to the economy, the latter takes from it. It shouldn't be a political issue at all, just common business practice.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Another checkmark to add to my long BSL (Bush Stupidity List.)

Hey, it will be over soon.

But, wait!, In 04, they said you cannot change a horse in the middle of a race. And many bought that line. But, now we are changing the horse in the middle of the race.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...Stomp down all independant thinkers and critics ...!!

That reminds me of many systems that want power over their people, from governments to religion, to whatever.

 

[Alex2507]

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.

Hearing that Whitey killed Cochran is worth paying for.

Unfortunately, in order to create better "ratings," they resort to these types of ridiculous programming. It'll be so much better for them to go private, problem is, then they'll have to "work." No more free lunch from Uncle Sam!

I thought the lunch was merely subsidized.

And now for something completely different.

http://www.kaotic.com/3528_Shaolin-Monks-Train-Their-Nuts.html

This fits right in.

I would rather watch PBS than American Idol and The Apprentice and I want Strat to pay for it.

 

[Halon451]

Another checkmark to add to my long BSL (Bush Stupidity List.)

Bravo - you go, dog!

Hey Joe, I get the impression that you don't like Bush for some reason.

 

[Halon451]

Just my two cents worth - I'm coming into this thread a bit late in the game, as it the discussion has already been raging thus far since my last login.

I'm not a big fan of public broadcasting stations myself. I skimmed over the pages of this thread to try to get an idea of what has been talked about, so forgive me if I'm covering old ground here. I will agree that most of the mainstream television that is being shown these days is pure garbage. I have yet to watch a full episode of American Idol, or any other brainless reality TV show. Rarely, if ever, have I tuned in to PBS, so it's absence is likely to go unnoticed by myself. These stations have long suffered from poor budgets, inferior technology (especially in the rise of the digital HD age), and deteriorating program material. Having worked in television stations that have substantial budgets - and helped incorporate the newer technologies that are becoming the standard today, I find it hard to believe that any public broadcast station will be able to compete by the end of this decade, without seeing huge budget increases that will only be passed down to us in the end. So what's the alternative?

The Sesame Street of today is not what it was when I watched it as a small child. Mr. Rodgers has passed away (R.I.P.), and instead you have shows like Barney that came in and further induced the so-called ADHD dilemna in our kids by shoving bright colorful images by their faces at a maddening pace, instead of focusing on actual educational significance (i.e., early Sesame Street, Electric Company, etc.)

My take on this is, if Bush wants to axe public broadcasting, it depends on where the funds will be re-directed, and for what purpose. Even though I don't tune in myself, I am sure there are many who get lots of enjoyment out of the programming public broadcast offers. The article didn't go into this. There may be some good that comes out of it - as with everything, you can only read news media for half the true story, as it will intentionally omit the full picture in lieu of painting yet another negative picture of those in charge, that an ufortunate many (without mentioning any names) readily eat up and use it to further their own ignorant points of view.

Anyway - I digress. Again, I will state that I haven't always believed in everything the Bush adminstration has done - it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[Johnd]

Just my two cents worth - I'm coming into this thread a bit late in the game, as it the discussion has already been raging thus far since my last login.

I'm not a big fan of public broadcasting stations myself. I skimmed over the pages of this thread to try to get an idea of what has been talked about, so forgive me if I'm covering old ground here. I will agree that most of the mainstream television that is being shown these days is pure garbage. I have yet to watch a full episode of American Idol, or any other brainless reality TV show. Rarely, if ever, have I tuned in to PBS, so it's absence is likely to go unnoticed by myself. These stations have long suffered from poor budgets, inferior technology (especially in the rise of the digital HD age), and deteriorating program material. Having worked in television stations that have substantial budgets - and helped incorporate the newer technologies that are becoming the standard today, I find it hard to believe that any public broadcast station will be able to compete by the end of this decade, without seeing huge budget increases that will only be passed down to us in the end. So what's the alternative?

The Sesame Street of today is not what it was when I watched it as a small child. Mr. Rodgers has passed away (R.I.P.), and instead you have shows like Barney that came in and further induced the so-called ADHD dilemna in our kids by shoving bright colorful images by their faces at a maddening pace, instead of focusing on actual educational significance (i.e., early Sesame Street, Electric Company, etc.)

My take on this is, if Bush wants to axe public broadcasting, it depends on where the funds will be re-directed, and for what purpose. Even though I don't tune in myself, I am sure there are many who get lots of enjoyment out of the programming public broadcast offers. The article didn't go into this. There may be some good that comes out of it - as with everything, you can only read news media for half the true story, as it will intentionally omit the full picture in lieu of painting yet another negative picture of those in charge, that an ufortunate many (without mentioning any names) readily eat up and use it to further their own ignorant points of view.

Anyway - I digress. Again, I will state that I haven't always believed in everything the Bush adminstration has done - it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Hey Halon: good morning.

Boy, it has been a while, hasn't it (since you've watched PBS). There is far more than Sesame Street and Mr. Rodgers on it. Perhaps if more people watched PBS, and actually knew what was being broadcast (aside from chidren's programming...which is morning and early afternoon), more people could speak intelligibly (not that you or anyone here hasn't..."intelligibly" insofar as ""knowing") about it and see what they're missing...unless of course one enjoys the likes of Survivor, Lie Detector, Idol, and that creative assortment of game and reality shows. Hmmmph.

 

[Halon451]

Hey Halon: good morning.

Boy, it has been a while, hasn't it (since you've watched PBS). There is far more than Sesame Street and Mr. Rodgers on it. Perhaps if more people watched PBS, and actually knew what was being broadcast (aside from chidren's programming...which is morning and early afternoon), more people could speak intelligibly (not that you or anyone here hasn't..."intelligibly" insofar as ""knowing") about it and see what they're missing...unless of course one enjoys the likes of Survivor, Lie Detector, Idol, and that creative assortment of game and reality shows. Hmmmph.

Hey John: Good morning.

Yeah - I agree, there's probably much more than just the kids shows I mentioned, merely using them as examples. Does PBS still run that show "Nova"? I used to really like that one. But I would hazard a guess that even that show can't hold a candle to the now-popular shows on History Channel, Discovery, Science, Nat Geo, etc., all of which I'm huge fans of. I for one cannot stand the run of the mill mainstream TV programming - I would rather stick a fork in my eye than sit through an entire episode of American Idol. And that's far from the worst of the bunch even.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Hey Halon: good morning.

Boy, it has been a while, hasn't it (since you've watched PBS). There is far more than Sesame Street and Mr. Rodgers on it. Perhaps if more people watched PBS, and actually knew what was being broadcast (aside from chidren's programming...which is morning and early afternoon), more people could speak intelligibly (not that you or anyone here hasn't..."intelligibly" insofar as ""knowing") about it and see what they're missing...unless of course one enjoys the likes of Survivor, Lie Detector, Idol, and that creative assortment of game and reality shows. Hmmmph.

Some great shows on PBS. Aside from the science and nature shows (now eclipsed by TDC), there are Monty Python, All Creatures Great & Small, Absolutely Fabulous, Jeeves & Wooster, Fawlty Towers, Foyle's War,.....