Cuomo's Budget Calls for 10% State Cut in Public Broadcasting Funding

[aaronread]

Maybe I've got it wrong, but -- hasn't Bob Smith mentioned in the past that WXXI doesn't get any funds from NYS or the feds for running their operation(except for producing a few specific shows)?

I believe he has, and he is correct...depending a little on your point of view. Remember that WXXI is essentially two quasi-separate entities working under one roof: the TV side and the radio side. It's nowhere near that simple, but it helps if you think of it that way.

Each side has a budget that it has to justify and raise funds for. Naturally, the TV side's a lot bigger because TV is a lot more expensive to produce. Also, the TV side is the one that gets funding from the STATE. The radio side does not. Both sides get federal dollars, in the form of CPB grants and other grants, but AFAIK the radio side doesn't get any state funding. Or if it does, it's pretty negligible.

So if the STATE cuts its funding to public broadcasting, that "doesn't effect" Bob Smith because he's on the radio side of things.

Now, here's the rub: while both sides have their own budget (and it'd be dumb to operate otherwise) the reality is that if WXXI-TV's budget is suddenly slashed, it's still all one big entity of "WXXI Public Broadcasting". Thus the potential for hard choices starts coming in: namely, does upper management rob Peter to pay Paul? (take from the radio side to support TV) Depending very heavily on a multitude of factors, it might...or might not...make sense to take money from radio to support TV. Or it might make sense that if 10% cuts on the TV side mean certain projects will suffer so badly that they're better off euthanized...possibly it would make sense to make even bigger cuts to TV and redistribute amongst the other TV projects. Or even subsidize the radio side more. I don't know their budgets so I have no idea really what would make the most sense.


BTW, another aspect of the cuts to entities like Roswell and U of R and whatnot is that a lot of these entities "support" public radio through underwriting or challenge grants. Not to mention that high-level white-collar professions like doctors tend to make up a disproportionate percentage of public radio donors, and if they lose their jobs then their donations to NPR stations are probably among the first things to go.

That's the problem with budget cuts: they tend to have enormous ripple effects that are very hard to really predict, beyond that they almost always make things far worse than people intend.

 

[Bob1370]

Baloney from 'Voice of Reason"!

"There are so many programs already on cable television geared towards the shows PBS airs"

Let's see, you're presumably referring to the lunacy the History Channel puts out as "history" like the endless specials on the myths of ancient astronauts, or Nostradamus, or the Aztecs' alleged predictions of the end of the world next year? Erik von Daniken is NOT an authority! Public TV doesn't confuse fiction and fantasy with fact the way channels like History so often do. Pseudo-science and pseudo-history is no substitute for solidly researched programming. I'll challenge you to find anything that comes close to NOVA or American Experience on any commercial channel when it comes to solid, proven research.
Or maybe you're talking about the "science" shows like Mythbusters on Discovery, which basically consists of a gang of goofs blowing things up, or "Top Shot" on History Channel which is just a precision shooting contest, a reality show, with no relation to actual history at all. Again, no comparison--and you ridicule yourself by trying to make one.

"Also there are numerous children’s’ shows. The only difference is while these programs air commercials, public-broadcasting airs “underwriting”; which is another term for commercials without jingles."

Again, I don't think you can compare the commercial offerings for children to PBS programs with a straight face, with the possible exception of some shows on the premium Disney Channel's early morning schedule which not all cable households get (or can afford)...you're going to try to tell me Pokemon or SpongeBob Squarepants is as educational as Arthur, or Sesame Street?

"Don’t you folks in public broadcasting get tired of dragging out that stale old mantra that if people fail to donate money that Big Bird will be taken off the air?"

We're tired of it being true and wish it were not...but sadly it is true.

"It’s not about the loss of programs; it’s about how much money top executives can scam from a gullible public."

Ahh, that old personal grievance again...

 

[The Voice of Reason]

"It’s not about the loss of programs; it’s about how much money top executives can scam from a gullible public."

Ahh, that old personal grievance again...

Well let's look at the facts shall we; something you seem to avoid for fear of upsetting your bosses.

The CEO at Roswell Park, Dr. Trump, makes over $500,000 a year for running an organization, with a staff of highly trained medical professionals, seeking to find a cure for cancer.

Meanwhile your boss makes over $300,000 a year, plus receives free medical and retirement benefits plus a new car every other year just to run a local radio and TV operation.

Now who is more deserving of their salary? Of course you will turn this into another one of your "VOA is just complaining Rants" but you know deep down that what I've stated is true.

I wouldn't mind a bit what your CEO made if he didn't get part of his salary from my tax dollars; and please don't bore us with your stale propaganda that your station doesn't receive government funding because it does. I don't care if it's radio or television; you gets taxpayer dollars period.

Personally I would rather have my tax dollars go towards cancer research than pay some TV executive(s) a boatload of money just so he/she can keep up their social status in the community at some wine and cheese function.

 

[Bob1370]

"Personally I would rather have my tax dollars go towards cancer research than pay some TV executive(s) a boatload of money just so he/she can keep up their social status in the community at some wine and cheese function."

And in your own personal animus you miss the essential point...that something more fundamental is wrong whenever any community is being asked, as you implicitly do, to choose between two worthwhile and valuable services just because funding is inadequate, or priorities in public spending are questionable. Doesn't it bother you, for example, that the bloated staffs and expense accounts of the State Legislature are several times as costly as the cancer research and educational/cultural broadcasting programs of the state put together? I'd love to know why you aren't asking that more central question rather than trying to pull the last ounce of funding from a valuable resource to the community.

 

[TheBigA]

Exhibit B in wasteful spending on executive salaries:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/nyregion/07cuomo.html?_r=1&hp

 

[Paul_Warren]

I don't agree with the cable argument. You have to pay for cable. And a lot of people choose not to have it, even though they can afford it. There should be one free TV station in every area that is non profit and focuses on non commercial programming...

Since when is Public TV free? Only commercial television is free.

Public subsidies for a Public TV station's programming forces everyone to pay for it whether they watch it or not. If that's a valid use of tax dollars, maybe cable should be made universal and "free," funded out of the state trough, and public stations (and all others) could do away with the costs of their transmitters.

Somebody owns the rights to more than four decades of Sesame Street reruns. The alphabet hasn't changed, the numerals are the same, and little kids don't know the Harry Belafonte episode is 30 years old. Put 'em out on DVD - it's not a news program!

NY State is headed off a financial cliff, and nobody can make the tough choices needed to stop it.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Since when is Public TV free? Only commercial television is free.

Public subsidies for a Public TV station's programming forces everyone to pay for it whether they watch it or not. If that's a valid use of tax dollars, maybe cable should be made universal and "free," funded out of the state trough, and public stations (and all others) could do away with the costs of their transmitters.

Somebody owns the rights to more than four decades of Sesame Street reruns. The alphabet hasn't changed, the numerals are the same, and little kids don't know the Harry Belafonte episode is 30 years old. Put 'em out on DVD - it's not a news program!

NY State is headed off a financial cliff, and nobody can make the tough choices needed to stop it.

Amen brother!

You are preaching to the choir here.

This "give-a-way" program for public broadcasting has to end now. As Mr. Warren mentioned (as did I) New York State is in dire financial straits. More cuts should be made to organizations that should rely on the contributions of people who use those services. Ie: Public Broadcasting.

This reminds me of the teacher's unions and school districts battle cry 'It's for the kids' when school taxes increase every year. Anyone with common sense knows that monies raised through taxes aren't going exclusively for school children but instead to feed a bloated bureaucracy. It's the same thing with public broadcasting.

I say enough when it comes to paying an executive at a local public TV and radio station twice as much as the Governor of New York, The Monroe County Executive, the Mayor of Rochester, the Police Chief of Rochester, and whose salary is $100,000 less than what the President of the United States makes.

Some say this is my personal vendetta against one person. I don't care who sits in that office to be honest with you. $300,000 a year, (probably more now) plus a new SUV, along with other perks, is too damn much money to pay this individual; especially when the organization this person works for receives government funds. If no taxpayer monies were involved then you wouldn't hear a peep out of me. But they don't.

After I am finished with this note I am going to email the governor and my state legislator requesting that all government funding for public broadcasting be eliminated from the state budget. In my email I will urge that supporters of public broadcasting step up to the plate and donate individually.

 

[listener-in]

Since when is Public TV free? Only commercial television is free.

Really? Do you think that the $$$multibillions that support the commercial broadcasting and advertising industries are conjured up out of thin air? You pay for it in the price of just about everything you buy, and it's much less transparent than whatever tax money goes into public broadcasting.

It's funny that people who gripe about inflated public salaries have nothing to say about executive pay in the private sector that's more inflated by orders of magnitude.

 

[Bob1370]

"Only commercial television is free."

Listener-in put it best, in that commercial broadcasting is a deductible (and therefore tax-exempt on the ad-buyer's end) business expense that's reflected in the cost of anything you buy that is or has been advertised, from restaurant meals to cars. And let's not forget the $75 to $150 a month you pay to Time-Warner for the privilege of watching just about anything that isn't sent out over the air from the handful of broadcast channels in your market...I'm sure if you don't pay for that you won't be receiving it for long.

I also guess VoR has no problem with the tens of millioms Comcast will pay Dan Burke for running NBC this year (all of which will eventually come out of our pockets in the advertising budget for our purchases), or the $15 million CBS will pay Les Moonves and Katie Couric each. His outrage is extremely selective, and demands explanation he seems unwilling to give.

 

[therealjm12]

The problem with cutting funding to WXXI or any public funded organization is that it never hurts anyone at the top. It's ALWAYS the guy pushing the broom that gets hurt. Part of the problem with public funding is the budgeting. Organizations, whether Public broadcasting, Municipalities, school districts, are obligated to spend their entire budget every year. If they don't, they will not receive as much the next year and certainly can't request more. That is a system that needs to change.

 

[TheBigA]

Part of the problem with public funding is the budgeting. Organizations, whether Public broadcasting, Municipalities, school districts, are obligated to spend their entire budget every year.

That doesn't address the problem. And, because of diversified funding, they're only obliged to spend the entire appropriation, not their entire budget. So that means the funding from other sources can be put into their endowment fund or other unspecified places. Public monies cannot. So any change in the appropriation system wouldn't address executive pay. Because their salary doesn't come from taxpayer dollars and isn't subject to that kind of scrutiny.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I also guess VoR has no problem with the tens of millioms Comcast will pay Dan Burke for running NBC this year (all of which will eventually come out of our pockets in the advertising budget for our purchases), or the $15 million CBS will pay Les Moonves and Katie Couric each. His outrage is extremely selective, and demands explanation he seems unwilling to give.

No one is taking tax dollars out of my paycheck so that I am forced to buy a new car, refrigerator, HDTV, Viagra, or what ever commercials are on the air. Yet part of my taxes (thanks to the federal government) does go towards the funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Speaking of commercials; pray tell what do you call "underwriting?" They are commercials without the fancy music or some car dealer screaming at you; but they are still commercials being aired on a broadcast entity that prides (or use to) itself on the fact it doesn't run commercials.

What could resolve this 10% state budget cut would be for a majority of your listeners and viewers to pay their fair share. But they won't and you know it. Another suggestion would be for your highly-paid executives to make a public statement that they will accept a cut in salary, and no extra benefits, to emphasize the seriousness of these budget cuts. Again we both know that there is no way that the CEO or his cadre of executives will cut one thin dime from their salaries.

For years pub-broadcasters have warned about cutting shows if the money isn't there. Well start cutting programs and let's see who responds. The silence I'm sure would be deafening.

The truth is Dr. Smith, as pointed out by another poster, it's the people at the top who won't be affected by any budget cuts; instead its folks like you and your colleagues that won't get raises or maybe lose their jobs.

 

[SirRoxalot]

I'd be willing to bet that Andy Cuomo has a considerably larger support staff than any Public TV head honcho. Andy pontificates, and the minions "make it so". When Andy starts cutting jobs in the executive branch, and the legislature starts cutting jobs and expenditures in their branch of government, they can criticize public broadcasters, school superintendents, and anybody else in the public domain.

With that said, a 10% cut seems like it ought to be manageable for public broadcasters. Maybe some of the additional channels that serve a very small audience - typically on cable - will have to go. So be it.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I'd be willing to bet that Andy Cuomo has a considerably larger support staff than any Public TV head honcho.

He's the governor of New York State. Of course he has more people working for him that the General Manager of a pub-radio/TV combo in Rochester, New York. Yet this GM makes twice the salary of the governor. Says a lot doesn't it?

Then again the governor doesn't have a Board of Directors who gives him carte blanche when it comes to granting large raises and bonuses. Maybe taxpayers should also hold this Board responsible too. After all most of them could care less about the operation. All they are interested in is adding to their resumes.

 

[TheBigA]

Yet this GM makes twice the salary of the governor. Says a lot doesn't it?

Have you compared retirement benenfits? I bet the gov's plan is a lot better. And you'll be paying for it. You talk about the GM's company car, but does he have a personal driver and assigned State Police escort? Probably not. How about a mansion with all expenses paid? Nope again.

Maybe taxpayers should also hold this Board responsible too. After all most of them could care less about the operation. All they are interested in is adding to their resumes.

The people on the board don't need stuff on their resumes. They're all presidents of major companies. And they're all taxpayers.

Then again the governor doesn't have a Board of Directors who gives him carte blanche when it comes to granting large raises and bonuses.

No, he has a state legislature, who do that for him, and for themselves. It's pretty funny. I wish I could vote myself a pay increase.

 

[listener-in]

No one is taking tax dollars out of my paycheck so that I am forced to buy a new car, refrigerator, HDTV, Viagra, or what ever commercials are on the air. Yet part of my taxes (thanks to the federal government) does go towards the funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Maybe it makes you feel good to think that you can avoid buying products or services that support programming - or grossly overpaid media executives - that you object to. I'm sure you could avoid paying to buy the few specific items you mentioned. However, when it comes to avoiding what is advertised by "whatever commercials are on the air", that would be a tall order; I challenge you to do it without either retiring to a cave somewhere and living the life of a hermit, or setting up your own full-time media research department to determine each and every source of funding of each and every objectionable broadcast/broadcaster.

If you really object to paying taxes towards public broadcasting, consistency requires that you should also refrain from buying any product, for example, that is shipped by BNSF Railway, that contains something produced by Archer Daniels Midland, or that is insured by Progressive Insurance. You pay, period. It's a case of pay me through taxes, or pay me through buying goods and services. Ultimately you have less control over the latter, which is the lifeblood of commercial broadcasting.

 

[aaronread]

No one is taking tax dollars out of my paycheck so that I am forced to buy a new car, refrigerator, HDTV, Viagra, or what ever commercials are on the air.

Actually, they kinda are. The corporate tax code in the USA...both at the state and federal level...is so completely screwed up that ALL of us are paying more in taxes because of it. There really isn't any difference between you paying $5/year that goes to CPB and you paying $5/year more in state income taxes because the Legislature gave some huge tax break to a company that relocated out-of-state anyways, and then the citizens have to make up the difference.

There's something screwy when the tax rate is supposed to be 35% (one of the highest in the world) yet most companies pay 1/5th to 1/10th that amount (one of the lowest). And manage to do it in a way that actually encourages companys to ship US jobs overseas.

Oh hey, guess who helps explain the problem quite nicely, and even tapped someone local to do it?

Never ceases to amaze me how conservatives can bitch all day long about the lousy two bucks a year their taxes cost for public broadcasting, but seem to have no problem with the hundreds of dollars a year they get reamed for because our corporate tax code is so messed up. Very odd given that NPR is one of the few entities devoting time and effort to educate the public about it.

 

[heydaybegone]

Very odd given that NPR is one of the few entities devoting time and effort to educate the public about it.

Ergo.....is anyone (in significant numbers) listening to NPR ?

Just a question. This debate is rolling into the desert...with only cactus to listen....

HDBG

(Disclaimer: I have said my piece about public broadcasting in other threads)

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Ergo.....is anyone (in significant numbers) listening to NPR ?

Oh NPR has a listening audience. The problem always has been that a minority of those listeners actually donate to their local stations during fund-raising drives. If more people contributed to their public stations that would elevate the need for government funding.

 

[Bob1370]

".....is anyone (in significant numbers) listening to NPR ?


According to AllAccess, fall Arbitrons show that in the top 50 markets (where the people-meters yield faster results; the diary markets like Buffalo and Rochester will come later) NPR affiliate stations set new records, shiowing huge audience bumps throughout the broadcast day.

If this trend holds true nationwide, Morning Edition and All Things Considered may each beat Rush Limbaugh in weekly cume by a significant margin and take the undisputed crown for most-listened-to national radio programs...which is, of course, the principal reason why Limbaugh's fans in the House hate NPR so much. If non-partisan analysis beats partisan oration consistently, partisans will obviously have a harder time selling their agenda to a public that now knows there are different ways of looking at an issue than just the Gospel According To Rush (or Beck, or Savage).