[Stradlater]

This is not in the political lounge because I think plenty of people enjoy the availability of children's programming and general public broadcasting with both PBS and NPR, but most people don't dare venture into the flamefest that is that other lounge.

Please save bickering for the P/W lounge -- feel free to post another topic there.

The petition is here: http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/

I apologize if this has been posted before, but a simple search didn't reveal anything.

[OwlBoy]

This is something I would have to agree on. I enjoy PBS and NPR.

-Owl

[TheMosco]

Yeah, I love listening to Car talk, Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me, Science friday, Only a Game, This American Life, the Connection, and many of the NPR programs. There is alot of politcally nutrual content on both those organizations that it would be a shame to lose.

[chris v]

Someone needs to cut funding for Congress by 60%. Bastards.

[Zimphire]

I don't care about PBS or NPRs slant. If it wasn't for them, I would have never seen Dr Who.

I've given plenty of money over the years.

They need to launch another DrWhoathon.

Those always get money,

Oh, and triumph of the nerds was a great documentary.

[RAILhead]

[PacHead]

Where's the petition to stop public funding of those stations ? I will sign that one.

I haven't had any use for PBS since I stopped watching sesame street decades ago. US taxpayers should also not be forced to contribute to the biased NPR propaganda machine. Dirty leftists are free to start however many stations they please, but not with my money.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Where's the petition to stop public funding of those stations ? I will sign that one.

I haven't had any use for PBS since I stopped watching sesame street decades ago. US taxpayers should also not be forced to contribute to the biased NPR propaganda machine. Dirty leftists are free to start however many stations they please, but not with my money.

Sometimes you have to take the good, with the bad.

Like the people that say, wont watch the Simpsons because they hate Fox News.

Silly.

[CreepingDeth]

If the programming is so wonderful, cut their funding and let them compete…without crutches.

[Zimphire]

Naw, most people watch crap.

I mean "Will & Grace" is a good example of that.

Even the history channel has to play some crap to get viewers.

[jasonsRX7]

I'd rather watch any show on PBS than the majority of shows on the major networks.

[Y3a]

why should ANY taxpayer money be used for this? Free enterprise!!! If the programming WAS instructional and not a bunch of editorial BS or biased opinion pieces maybe, but it's not.

[boots]

Here's the CPB's report from 2003: click

Note the independent (Tarrance Group) report on public broadcasting perceptions (attachment 2) starting on pg 11 of the report (13 of the pdf).

Notable is the following:

Both surveys confirm the same thing: The majority of the U.S. adult population does not believe that the news and information programming on public broadcasting is biased. The plurality of Americans indicate that there is no apparent bias one way or the other, while approximately one-in-five detect a liberal bias and approximately one-in-ten detect a conservative bias.

---

The focus group research helped confirm a common hypothesis: There is a core segment of the population that will always contend that all news media is biased no matter what. In other words, many people are simply “jumping on the bandwagon” and saying PBS and/or NPR are biased only because they believe all news media are biased and they do not distinguish between specific news organizations and the news media in general.

---

Fifty-three percent (53%) of Republicans are “consumers” of PBS and/or NPR news and information programming as compared to 65% among Democrats. However, taking news and information programming out of the equation and looking at all areas of public broadcasting (e.g. educational programming, children’s programming, etc.), this latest survey finds that public broadcasting usage levels between Republicans and Democrats are virtually identical (85% and 87%, respectively).

---

Fewer than 15% of Americans say that PBS and NPR coverage of the war and/or the Bush Administration is slanted.

This whole "biased so lets cut funding" thing is hyperbole to appease the relatively small number of people who constitute the far right.

Similar things have been proposed in the past, and they've always been voted down (if they've even been voted on). It's all a political move to pander to a base-constituency.

[CreepingDeth]

I don't care what it's going to. Why should we subsidize the semi-private PBS, NPR, etc., and not another business? Subsidization is wrong. We should not be helping businesses if they can't make it on their own merits. That's called capitalism. If people like yourselves want something like NPR, then businesses will try to capture the market. No need to help out a business that doesn't seem to have the survival skills.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Y3a

why should ANY taxpayer money be used for this? Free enterprise!!! If the programming WAS instructional and not a bunch of editorial BS or biased opinion pieces maybe, but it's not.

Don't support it? Don't sign the petition. The programming is varied, not all of PBS and NPR is political.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by CreepingDeth

I don't care what it's going to. Why should we subsidize the semi-private PBS, NPR, etc., and not another business? Subsidization is wrong. We should not be helping businesses if they can't make it on their own merits. That's called capitalism. If people like yourselves want something like NPR, then businesses will try to capture the market. No need to help out a business that doesn't seem to have the survival skills.

Don't enjoy any of their programming? Don't sign the petition. Simple!

[Albert Pujols]

PBS has some great science and educational programming. Most of us watched PBS when we were young. What will the next generation watch? A bunch of crappy cartoons?

[OwlBoy]

Originally Posted by Albert Pujols

PBS has some great science and educational programming. Most of us watched PBS when we were young. What will the next generation watch? A bunch of crappy cartoons?

Dunno how old you are, but at 21 I watched a ton of bad cartoons as a kid

-Owl

[CreepingDeth]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Don't enjoy any of their programming? Don't sign the petition. Simple!

Maybe you didn't take time to read. I don't care what is being broadcasted. I just don't believe we should subsidize anything. It could be another news channel, a music channel, a porn channel, or whathaveyou. The end (programming) does not justify the means (tax money). Now, if there are enough people like yourselves who want programming similar to PBS's or NPR's, then a business will start something like PBS or adjust its programming to capture the market. That's how the game works. Stop wasting money on subsidies. If you guys think PBS is good enough, it should be able to survive on its own. It's also unfair to every other business who doesn't get a govie special treatment.

[boots]

There's no profit to be had in many markets. Especially rural markets. Not much of a population base. Republics/democracies require an informed populace. Without some subsidies, many places would lose a vital source of basic news information.

Also, the numbers we're talking about aren't (comparatively) huge. Only about 10% of the total public broadcasting budget (IIRC).

[Albert Pujols]

Originally Posted by OwlBoy

Dunno how old you are, but at 21 I watched a ton of bad cartoons as a kid

-Owl

I'm 18. I used to watch lame cartoons when I was a kid. And look at me now...posting on some Mac forum.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by CreepingDeth

Maybe you didn't take time to read. I don't care what is being broadcasted. I just don't believe we should subsidize anything. It could be another news channel, a music channel, a porn channel, or whathaveyou. The end (programming) does not justify the means (tax money). Now, if there are enough people like yourselves who want programming similar to PBS's or NPR's, then a business will start something like PBS or adjust its programming to capture the market. That's how the game works. Stop wasting money on subsidies. If you guys think PBS is good enough, it should be able to survive on its own. It's also unfair to every other business who doesn't get a govie special treatment.

A lot of great things have small audiences. Sophisticated TV series usually die before the second or third season. I agree with what Pujols said a few posts up, about PBS educational material. I'd like the good programming to remain, and if that requires gov't money, so be it. But I don't care to get into an argument here, about just how capitalistic the US of A is, and whatnot.

[OwlBoy]

Originally Posted by Albert Pujols

I'm 18. I used to watch lame cartoons when I was a kid. And look at me now...posting on some Mac forum.

http://www.ycdtotv.com/

[CreepingDeth]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

But I don't care to get into an argument here, about just how capitalistic the US of A is, and whatnot.

Not very, as can be seen in this thread.

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally Posted by CreepingDeth

Maybe you didn't take time to read. I don't care what is being broadcasted. I just don't believe we should subsidize anything. It could be another news channel, a music channel, a porn channel, or whathaveyou. The end (programming) does not justify the means (tax money). Now, if there are enough people like yourselves who want programming similar to PBS's or NPR's, then a business will start something like PBS or adjust its programming to capture the market. That's how the game works. Stop wasting money on subsidies. If you guys think PBS is good enough, it should be able to survive on its own. It's also unfair to every other business who doesn't get a govie special treatment.

I disagree. It's appropriate for the government to fund public projects, which is essentially what we see with parks, monuments, museums, NEA, PBS, etc. If something can stand on its own, then that's great. But if it can't, and it's worth having anyway, then let it be subsidized.

[budster101]

Sorry but PBS has been left slanted almost to the extreme for years and still is. Putting one conservative host on will not balance things. If they want to compete in the marketplace, only the truely good programming will survive. We can have a new telethon.. Save PBS... vote on your favorite shows and vote off the horrible slanted crap.

Let the public decide.

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

I disagree. It's appropriate for the government to fund public projects, which is essentially what we see with parks, monuments, museums, NEA, PBS, etc. If something can stand on its own, then that's great. But if it can't, and it's worth having anyway, then let it be subsidized.

I agree with that completely. Despite the claims of slant, there are alot of scientific, education, and actual quality entertainment on these stations. There is virtually no money in this market. These stations are not going to get the bid advertising dollars that other stations because they don't have shows like "who wants to marry a millionaire" and crap like that. They already barely survive, taking away their government funding isn't going to help that.

There are times when government subsidization isn't right, but this isn't one of those times. I think in this case it would be beneficial to the public good.

[budster101]

Discover Channel... they do just fine.

National Geographic... they do fine too.

No need for garbage science programs. Unless they want to compete in the FREE MARKET.

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by CreepingDeth

Now, if there are enough people like yourselves who want programming similar to PBS's or NPR's, then a business will start something like PBS or adjust its programming to capture the market. That's how the game works. Stop wasting money on subsidies.

Thats already been done, the programming on channels like the Learning Channel and the Descovery Channel is mostly crap. Find me another channel that has 9 hours of educational childrens programming a day. Where are kids going to learn? Are they going to watch Nickelodean? Or how about how to turn a mustang into a lawn mower on the descovery channel. Thats pretty educational stuff.

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by budster101

Discover Channel... they do just fine.

National Geographic... they do fine too.

No need for garbage science programs. Unless they want to compete in the FREE MARKET.

First off, those television networks are not broadcast stations, meaning that they aren't offered to everyone that has a television. They also are able to get huge advertising dollars for showing shows about plastic surgery before and after or trading spaces.

They don't offer as complete of a range of quality content.

PBS and NPR seem to me like a public library, they provide different services than something like Barnes and Nobles. Public libraries shouldn't get a ton of funding, but they should be given enough to benefit the community.

[budster101]

Nonsense. Go to the library if you want to get educational crap... otherwise get cable or satelite.

It's no longer 1976.. and PBS is just lame.

I have a 23 million dollar library by me, and another 18 million dollar one going up as well as another 8 million dollar one going into my old neighborhood. The whole neihborhood is 2 square miles...and not affluent.

Libraries are quickly becoming THE place to go and enjoy FREE broadband, have a latte, and LEARN.

PBS is not what I want... I want a CHOICE.

Thanks.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by budster101

Sorry but PBS has been left slanted almost to the extreme for years and still is. Putting one conservative host on will not balance things. If they want to compete in the marketplace, only the truely good programming will survive. We can have a new telethon.. Save PBS... vote on your favorite shows and vote off the horrible slanted crap.

Let the public decide.

John McLaughlin's show has been on since the early 80s. Next to William F. Buckley he's one of the most respected conservative commentators in the country.

Anyway, from what I have found the funding is being cut from 400 million to 300 million. I can live with that. There are a lot of shows that need to be pruned from their schedule and several that could generate more money if they needed to. Who the hell wants to see a PBS reality show about a family of dorks trying to live like Pioneers? Lose the creepy UK kids shows. And make Antiques Roadshow generate its own funds.

There are several shows that just don't have an audience and several low viewership markets that spend money on locally produced shows that we could live without. If they want to make them they should be made with 100% of donated funds not federal money. They clearly aren't made for a national audience so why waste the money. If people want to watch them they will pay to keep them on and have them produced. The good shows, This Old house, Frontline, The McLaughlin Group, etc., can prove their value based on the request to air them on local PBS affiliates.

I don't care for NPR but I am sure an auditor could scale back their costs without losing much. Its radio, not terribly expensive to produce.

[boots]

A lot of the money is given by the CPB in grants to rural radio stations to run local news, weather, and (if needed) emergency stuff. Those are the places the funding cut will hurt the most. I doubt it will really be felt by NPR proper.

[olePigeon]

PBS and NPR are awesome. Nova and Mystery are two of my favorite programs. What I love even more is when they have Red Dwarf, Montey Python, Black Adder, and Dr. Who marathons. I also try to watch KTEH/KVIE Public Broadcasting. Like PBS, they do the marathons and everything too PLUS Rick Steves. I love Europe through the Back Door. One of the coolest travel shows ever.

[budster101]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

John McLaughlin's show has been on since the early 80s. Next to William F. Buckley he's one of the most respected conservative commentators in the country.

Anyway, from what I have found the funding is being cut from 400 million to 300 million. I can live with that. There are a lot of shows that need to be pruned from their schedule and several that could generate more money if they needed to. Who the hell wants to see a PBS reality show about a family of dorks trying to live like Pioneers? Lose the creepy UK kids shows. And make Antiques Roadshow generate its own funds.

There are several shows that just don't have an audience and several low viewership markets that spend money on locally produced shows that we could live without. If they want to make them they should be made with 100% of donated funds not federal money. They clearly aren't made for a national audience so why waste the money. If people want to watch them they will pay to keep them on and have them produced. The good shows, This Old house, Frontline, The McLaughlin Group, etc., can prove their value based on the request to air them on local PBS affiliates.

I don't care for NPR but I am sure an auditor could scale back their costs without losing much. Its radio, not terribly expensive to produce.

I'm leaning more towards how you are thinking in this case than anything. It needs to be pruned.. I'd rather see local libraries built up more than PBS promoted... A community would profit more from a Grand Library than more PBS, IMHO. Our libraries are putting on some great efforts for education, and really bringing a community together. What has PBS done?

Exactly on the mark in your comment about proving themselves.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by budster101

What has PBS done?

...and a lot more...

I'd be fine with some pruning, but boots made a valid comment about that.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

PBS and NPR are awesome. Nova and Mystery are two of my favorite programs. What I love even more is when they have Red Dwarf, Montey Python, Black Adder, and Dr. Who marathons. I also try to watch KTEH/KVIE Public Broadcasting. Like PBS, they do the marathons and everything too PLUS Rick Steves. I love Europe through the Back Door. One of the coolest travel shows ever.

For all this, YOU should be prepared to foot the bill. Not me. Not my kids.

We won't call it "taxing liberals," we'll call it a "user fee." Oh, and you can pay for all the poor people to have PBS, too, so they can learn how evil conservatives are.

leave me out of it.

[chris v]

Wow, I haven't missed you guys!

[Captain Obvious]

I am curious though, why hasn't PBS leased some of the syndication rights for old Mr. Rodgers, 321 contact, and Sesame Street shows to make money? Or create DVD sales or something. I assume the rights could have been negotiated so both PBS and the producers could make money and its not like they air these shows anymore. They still have educational value and I am sure some cable network would love to show them.. like Nickelodeon.

They could even draw up contractual agreements so that the times the shows are aired do not compete with PBS airtimes of their newer shows.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

I am curious though, why hasn't PBS leased some of the syndication rights for old Mr. Rodgers, 321 contact, and Sesame Street shows to make money? Or create DVD sales or something. I assume the rights could have been negotiated so both PBS and the producers could make money and its not like they air these shows anymore. They still have educational value and I am sure some cable network would love to show them.. like Nickelodeon.

My guess would be that it's hard to syndicate work that was created for commercial-less television.

[budster101]

Now you are thinking. Why not?

3-2-1 Contact was a great program, as was Sesame Street.
I'm a big fan of Dr. Who as well... but this doesn't mean we have to fund the other garbage. They would have suceeded anyway.

[nredman]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I don't care about PBS or NPRs slant. If it wasn't for them, I would have never seen Dr Who.

I've given plenty of money over the years.

They need to launch another DrWhoathon.

Those always get money,

Oh, and triumph of the nerds was a great documentary.

Your best post ever.

i can also thank PBS for introducing me to Dr. Who. i remember those Dr. Who pledge drives...give $100 get a free dr. who shirt, give $250 get a few shirt, mug and calendar HOLY **** BALLS DOCTOR!!

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

My guess would be that it's hard to syndicate work that was created for commercial-less television.

Have you not seen Sex & the City on TBS? Larry Sanders on latenight TV?

[budster101]

Dr. Who would rock on cable... they could spice it up!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

This is not in the political lounge because I think plenty of people enjoy the availability of children's programming and general public broadcasting with both PBS and NPR, but most people don't dare venture into the flamefest that is that other lounge.

Please save bickering for the P/W lounge -- feel free to post another topic there.

The petition is here: http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/

I apologize if this has been posted before, but a simple search didn't reveal anything.

Don't you think that if your goal is to persuade a Republican-contolled congress to continue public funding of NPR, then moveon.org probably isn't the best organization to deliver that message? Most Republican congressmen would probably welcome it about as much as a Howard Dean strippergram.

[zwiebel_]

Originally Posted by budster101

Discover Channel... they do just fine.

National Geographic... they do fine too.

No need for garbage science programs. Unless they want to compete in the FREE MARKET.

Not everyone has cable/sat TV, my friend. Hence, a station like PBS is very welcome in my home, unlike the other 6 crap stations i recieve.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

Have you not seen Sex & the City on TBS? Larry Sanders on latenight TV?

I haven't, no, so I'm not sure how they work around it. My guess is they make cuts? I know that HBO and Showtime shows aren't always the full hour. Plenty are 50ish minutes with commercials for other things in the week for ten minutes until the next show.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Don't you think that if your goal is to persuade a Republican-contolled congress to continue public funding of NPR, then moveon.org probably isn't the best organization to deliver that message? Most Republican congressmen would probably welcome it about as much as a Howard Dean strippergram.

Eh, if you can find a non-biased petition, link to it; in the meantime, this'll have to do.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Eh, if you can find a non-biased petition, link to it; in the meantime, this'll have to do.

My point is that it is going to be counterproductive to your position. Not just ignored, but if anything probably seen as reenforcing the very stereotype you want to challenge.

Edit: preposition needed.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

My point is that it is going to be counterproductive your position. Not just ignored, but if anything probably seen as reenforcing the very stereotype you want to challenge.

Yep, NPR & PBS are probably worried now, especially since they see what kind of group is petitioning on their behalf.

This petition by moveon.org (crazy lying fanatics), might even be better and more effective than the petition I had been hoping for. Perhaps I should sign it.