Another disgusting tactic from WHYY 12

[TheBigA]

Wrong! It's not about paying for a service you use. It's about a charitable donation. That's why money given to public television is tax deductible (minus the cost of the premium).

It's both. There's a charity, but the donor gets a service, which is TV programming. Not so with donations to food banks or the American Cancer Society. Unfortunately freeloaders also get the service, and feel that also entitles them to complain. It doesn't. They can simply change the station and their problem goes away. The station won't miss them.

I didn't realize you were such a fan of public television that you would feel compelled to impugn the motives of anyone who offers criticism of it or its tactics.

I don't understand why you would support someone who wants to get something for nothing. Don't YOU like to get paid for what you do? There was a time when people in this country wanted to help others, and considered it their duty to donate to charity. I guess that's no longer popular with the entitlement generation.

There is nothing wrong, shameless, improper, or illegal about reminding you to donate. Nothing at all. The only reason it should bother someone is if they feel guilty.

It's my experience that people who work the begathons like begging for money, at least in that context.

What "experience" are you referring to?

 

[TheBigA]

I surly don't begrudge them getting good equipment, but it seems that working in Public Broadcasting isn't the "vocation" it used to be where you'd make far less than your commercial broadcasting competitors.

Why should it be? Viewers have many choices for TV. No reason why non-commercial TV should be lower quality. Back in 1967 when the Ford Foundation drew up the plan for PBS called A Public Trust, the goal was to make non-commercial TV higher quality. The quote was that the public deserves BETTER, not worse TV. At the same time, costs for quality TV have risen. The federal government no longer underwrites all of the cost, as it did 50 years ago. Now, the lion's share of the money comes from major grants and underwriting. It takes a different kind of CEO to attract that kind of money. So yes, public TV has changed since 1963. All the more reason for viewers to show their support for the stations they watch. Because if they don't, the station has less of a reason to air the kinds of shows people might want to see.

 

[Oscar Madison]

Much as you might try to link them, there is no connection between donation and service. The Y is a non-profit in competition with for-profits offering similar services. They charge for the service and they accept donations. Two entirely different things. If there is a connection between money paid and the rendering of service, it is not a donation. Ask the IRS.

No one has an obligation to donate in order to watch. Just as no one has an obligation to buy products advertised on commercial television or even to watch the commercials. At one time, advertisers owned, produced and sponsored programs buying the product to support the program was part of the pitch. No more. Public television still uses it. They can say what they want and the rest of us can do what we want. We owe public television nothing.

Whom do you know who doesn't want to get something for nothing?

HBO wants to charge me and I decide if what they offer is worth the asking price. Currently, I don't.

Lots of websites have obnoxious pop-up ads cluttering up the page. I find the ads obnoxious, so I use an ad blocker. It's the ad agencies job to entice me to want to see that ad and mostly, they don't. I record public television shows because I find long-winded begathons obnoxious and I skip them. The show holds my attention. The pledge drive does not, so I don't watch. Their business is getting attention (favorably). If they don't do that, they haven't done their job.

Today, public television does not offer better TV. Documentaries, comparable to what's on cable. Lawrence Welk and infomercials. They have forfeited the right to ask for "support" for "quality television."

WHYY-TV is over-equipped given the amount and type of original programming they produce.

You give them your money if you like them so much. But smile when you call anybody else a "freeloader."

And, since you asked, I was speaking of my personal experience in public broadcasting. Thank you for asking.

 

[TheBigA]

No one has an obligation to donate in order to watch.

I haven't said there is. There also is no obligation for stations to present programming without occasional donation reminders. It's a small thing. I don't understand why you and the OP are turning it into such a big deal. Just change the station, and the annoyance goes away. Why is that so tough?

And, since you asked, I was speaking of my personal experience in public broadcasting. Thank you for asking.

So you're saying that when you worked in public broadcasting, you liked begging for money? Maybe you can explain why.

 

[Oscar Madison]

I haven't said there is. There also is no obligation for stations to present programming without occasional donation reminders. It's a small thing. I don't understand why you and the OP are turning it into such a big deal. Just change the station, and the annoyance goes away. Why is that so tough?



So you're saying that when you worked in public broadcasting, you liked begging for money? Maybe you can explain why.

Don't twist what was said. OP objected to the way they asked for money. Completely different issue.

I didn't like it. I watched other people and they clearly did enjoy doing the pledge drives. For many people in public broadcasting, it's their only time in the spotlight. And there's some sort of rush in telling people to call and phones ring.

 

[TheBigA]

Don't twist what was said. OP objected to the way they asked for money. Completely different issue.

The OP used language like "hucksters" and "con man like behavior." Neither was appropriate, because there is nothing wrong with what they're doing, other than one anonymous poster objects. As I've said, they are within their rights to ask for money, as you & the OP are within your rights to ignore them. That's the end of the discussion. Nothing else to say, because the station is not going to change its practice.

I didn't like it. I watched other people and they clearly did enjoy doing the pledge drives. For many people in public broadcasting, it's their only time in the spotlight. And there's some sort of rush in telling people to call and phones ring.

That's your interpretation. Mine is very different. We cancel each other out.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Why should it be? Viewers have many choices for TV. No reason why non-commercial TV should be lower quality. Back in 1967 when the Ford Foundation drew up the plan for PBS called A Public Trust, the goal was to make non-commercial TV higher quality. The quote was that the public deserves BETTER, not worse TV. At the same time, costs for quality TV have risen. The federal government no longer underwrites all of the cost, as it did 50 years ago. Now, the lion's share of the money comes from major grants and underwriting. It takes a different kind of CEO to attract that kind of money. So yes, public TV has changed since 1963. All the more reason for viewers to show their support for the stations they watch. Because if they don't, the station has less of a reason to air the kinds of shows people might want to see.

You make a valid point. Folks complained that tax dollars shouldn't support Public Broadcasting and I believe now only 10% of their money comes from the government. So yes, the CEO's job probably is different today than back in 1963 when our society was functioning under FDR's New Deal programs and attitudes vs today where we're functioning under Reaganomics aka trickle down attitudes. I do listen to NPR more than I watch PBS. When I watch it's things like NOVA, Frontline, and American Experience and then I watch those online. The PBS Newshour is the only PBS show I regularly watch on TV. I watch FIRST online. So I might have to reconsider making a donation to them.

 

[Oscar Madison]

Public broadcasting's fund-raising pitch is something "you watch it, you pay for it."

When they are in their fund-raising periods is when they trot out crap. The classy stuff associated in many people's minds with public television (like those MFD listed in the above post) are never shown during pledge drives. During pledge periods, public television does begathons reminiscent of Jerry Lewis telethons, Lawrence Welk and infomercials.

Public television has been described as a fund-raising organization with a satellite dish on the roof.

People give money to public television because they like public television - not the programming but the institution and the concept. Public television is a club people want to join and a badge people want to wear. So, they have their coffee mugs, tote bags and bumper stickers to show the world.

PS: Mike, "First" is underwritten by money from the state, so you already donated when you paid your taxes. What should be troubling is government purse strings on a news show.

 

[davideduardo]

People give money to public television because they like public television - not the programming but the institution and the concept. Public television is a club people want to join and a badge people want to wear. So, they have their coffee mugs, tote bags and bumper stickers to show the world.

Au contraire, mon frère. If I donate to PBS it is because I enjoy the programming and understand that the content is sustained by donations. I have no interest in mugs, tees and DVDs of shows I already have seen.

Using the anecdotal evidence I accumulated during the run of Downton Abbey, I have encountered many, many people who have said things like, "I never gave to public TV before, but I love the show so much I thought I should send something..."

Philanthropists give to the entity based on the concept. Viewers give in proportion to their enjoyment of the content (and their susceptibility to being taken on a guilt trip, of course),

 

[Oscar Madison]

Au contraire, mon frère. If I donate to PBS it is because I enjoy the programming and understand that the content is sustained by donations. I have no interest in mugs, tees and DVDs of shows I already have seen.

Using the anecdotal evidence I accumulated during the run of Downton Abbey, I have encountered many, many people who have said things like, "I never gave to public TV before, but I love the show so much I thought I should send something..."

Philanthropists give to the entity based on the concept. Viewers give in proportion to their enjoyment of the content (and their susceptibility to being taken on a guilt trip, of course),

I don't deny that this happens as you describe. That's what keeps Lawrence Welk alive. I have to wonder if those "I Love The Show" pledges keep coming year after year.

There's another category I'm talking about. People whose self-identity is based on "Too Good For Commercial Television." For them, public television membership (if not actual viewing) is part of their identity, along with Brie, Chablis and Volvos. They probably give year after year.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

so the people of Delaware are the sponsors, whoops I mean corporate underwriters, of that show. I wonder if that funding would dry up if First did a negative story about the Markel Administration?

 

[davideduardo]

There's another category I'm talking about. People whose self-identity is based on "Too Good For Commercial Television." For them, public television membership (if not actual viewing) is part of their identity, along with Brie, Chablis and Volvos. They probably give year after year.

I think that group has faded in proportion to Volvo's sales in the US. The segment is now populated by former soccer moms who now have grandkids.

 

[Oscar Madison]

so the people of Delaware are the sponsors, whoops I mean corporate underwriters, of that show. I wonder if that funding would dry up if First did a negative story about the Markel Administration?

The people working that show must have had the same thought. And that's the concern. Not that the administration would overtly say to do or not do something but what would happen if they did or did not do something. Worrying about not biting the hand that feeds you can make people very timid. Delaware news people already often tread lightly to protect "access." They can step even more lightly to protect their jobs. No money. No show. No job. When channel 12 accepted government money for government coverage, they sold out.

 

[Oscar Madison]

I think that group has faded in proportion to Volvo's sales in the US. The segment is now populated by former soccer moms who now have grandkids.

Probably now they drive Prii.

 

[davideduardo]

Probably now they drive Prii.

That being the plural of "Prius" of course.