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

[SirRoxalot]

Yeah, that Savage guy is a real bomb-thrower. Just ask him about HD radio.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

Yeah, that Savage guy is a real bomb-thrower. Just ask him about HD radio.

Rox, I think Professor Bob was referring to Michael Savage, syndicated conservative talk show host, as opposed to Robert Craig (Bob) Savage, legendary Rochester broadcaster, owner of WYSL AM & FM, Avon-Rochester and the world. Although it is true, RCS does get kinda revved-up up when the topic of AM HD is raised.

 

[cee]

Is there a solution to this brouhaha that can make all sides happy? As stated before, I am no expert on public broadcasting(and it's various rules and regs), BUT there is a legal limit on how much on-air underwriting a public station can run each hour, is there not(or am I ill informed at this matter)? If there is such a limit, can't the FCC decrease that limit and pubcasters can get more money from underwriting and thus they could conceivably wean themselves off the public teet? Then Big Bird can continue to be seen in every market, CEO's like Norm get to keep their nice salaries(and perks) and it's nobody's business what pub broadcasters they do with their own money. But there's a problem with this, I'm guessing?

 

[TheBigA]

But there's a problem with this, I'm guessing?

Well the problem, so to speak, is that the station loses the non-commercial nature that drew people to it in the first place. Big Bird wears a corporate logo, funding announcements every five minutes, and everything is for sale. Then what differentiates these stations from their commercial bretheren? Then again, consider what we've done to our politicians. Their entire focus these days is on raising money so they can run for re-election. How does that benefit the public, and how does that effect their abilities to legislate in fair ways? Going back to the founding of public broadcasting, the original goal was to eliminate those kinds of financial motivations from programmers. To keep WNED from becoming another Citadel. The more you loosen underwriting rules, the more commercialization you introduce to the system, as well as the air signal.

 

[cee]

Well the problem, so to speak, is that the station loses the non-commercial nature that drew people to it in the first place. Big Bird wears a corporate logo, funding announcements every five minutes, and everything is for sale. Then what differentiates these stations from their commercial bretheren?

That's definitely NOT what I had in mind. We already have commercial underwriting and they already loosened the rules on what you can say in those underwriting announcements. I'm just saying add maybe just a little more of the current local underwriting, perhaps 60 seconds, per hour. It's pushing the envelope a little more, but considering govt. cutbacks are inevitable, pub broadcasting wouldn't lose it's non commercial nature and Big Bird would continue not to wear a corporate logo(despite the current semi-commercials I've seen for many years now).

 

[TheBigA]

I'm just saying add maybe just a little more of the current local underwriting, perhaps 60 seconds, per hour.

It won't be enough to replace gov't funding. It's like these states that think if they have just a little bit of gambling, it won't hurt anything.

 

[fybush]

That's definitely NOT what I had in mind. We already have commercial underwriting and they already loosened the rules on what you can say in those underwriting announcements. I'm just saying add maybe just a little more of the current local underwriting, perhaps 60 seconds, per hour. It's pushing the envelope a little more, but considering govt. cutbacks are inevitable, pub broadcasting wouldn't lose it's non commercial nature and Big Bird would continue not to wear a corporate logo(despite the current semi-commercials I've seen for many years now).

One of the challenges here is that the programming that is most dependent on government funding (as I understand it, anyway) is the programming that is least likely to draw any kind of underwriting support. I'm thinking here of services like "Homework Hotline," the daily half-hour that we produce at WXXI and that's distributed through PBS member stations statewide. It's true "educational television" as the concept was originally conceived: 30 minutes with two teacher-hosts taking phone calls on the air from kids around the state who need help with their math (and other) homework. (There's also a phone bank that takes calls off the air.)

It's not sexy television, but it makes a difference in the lives of a lot of kids who have no other easy way to get that kind of help after school...and I'd venture to guess that it's a lot more economical as a state-funded educational expense than trying to fund that kind of service on a face-to-face basis in hundreds of towns all over the state would be.

It's the sort of thing that no commercial broadcaster, whether it be a broadcast station or a cable network, is going to devote 30 minutes a day at 5:30 PM to producing and airing, and it's the sort of thing that just doesn't lend itself to any kind of underwriting, "enhanced" or otherwise. So if you consider it a worthwhile service, how else do you fund it?

 

[cee]

One of the challenges here is that the programming that is most dependent on government funding (as I understand it, anyway) is the programming that is least likely to draw any kind of underwriting support. I'm thinking here of services like "Homework Hotline,"

I don't doubt you, but that surprises me. I would think Wegmans or some other civic minded organization would underwrite HH - underwriting a show that helps kids do better in school -- seems like it would make good PR.

It won't be enough to replace gov't funding. It's like these states that think if they have just a little bit of gambling, it won't hurt anything.

How do you know that? Do you have some figures you can share with us?

 

[TheBigA]

It won't be enough to replace gov't funding. It's like these states that think if they have just a little bit of gambling, it won't hurt anything.

How do you know that? Do you have some figures you can share with us?

It's complicated, but with regards to underwriting announcements within existing programming, we assigned a value to each announcement, based on the size of the grant. Adding more announcements doesn't necessarily mean a grantor will give more money. It just adds more inventory. More inventory in a down market could lead to lowering the value of each announcement.

 

[cee]

Big A - do you work in Public Broadcasting?

 

[TheBigA]

Big A - do you work in Public Broadcasting?

At one time.

 

[heydaybegone]

I'm the last person to summarize whats happening here...(but someone has to)

1. State budgets receive income ONLY ONE way - taxes
2. Budgets are based on that tax income
3. Public broadcasting MAY be cut when the TAXPAYERS have paid their taxes and there isn't enough money left
4 The Legislators are determining how the TAXPAYERS money is spent (i.e. politician wages etc.)
5. This rises to a Federal level also...but off topic
6. Unfortunately...when the cuts are made...he who has not received...must make up the difference. At someone's expense.
7. What was yesterday..isn't today. (Refer to Nero fiddling- Google "Nero" if you're lost)

Wiping brow from the beads of sweat...

8. With regards to "underwriting" -I believe something should allow "laws" to be changed to make Public Broadcasting a "commercial" enterprise for it's own survival.
Meaning - let them compete on the commercial front WHILE maintaining their "Public Interest" status.
OK - no Budweiser sandwich boards on Big Bird - but you get it.

 

[TheBigA]

8. With regards to "underwriting" -I believe something should allow "laws" to be changed to make Public Broadcasting a "commercial" enterprise for it's own survival.
Meaning - let them compete on the commercial front WHILE maintaining their "Public Interest" status.
OK - no Budweiser sandwich boards on Big Bird - but you get it.

Sorry, but the commercial broadcasters, who also pay a lot in taxes and a lot in PAC money to legislators, won't let that happen.

 

[heydaybegone]

Sorry, but the commercial broadcasters, who also pay a lot in taxes and a lot in PAC money to legislators, won't let that happen.

So, you concur...without "change"...this whole topic of discussion is "fruitless" without "reform" (Much like Health Insurance REFORM)

Just asking.

 

[TheBigA]

Oh I don't know. The whole thing has been ambling along for 30 years and no one seemed to care. Now all of a sudden it's a life and death problem, as though it just happened.

 

[Bob1370]

'Voice of Reason' inaccurately stated, "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."

Did you know that all advertising for commercially sold and promoted products, including that fridge or Viagra prescription, is 100% tax deductible as a business expense for the advertiser, and hence you pay higher taxes to make up the difference as well as paying for the ads directly within the price of the product? This makes programs like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh FAR more subsidized by taxes, though indirectly, than the comparative pittance behind all NPR programming put together! (And of course Morning Edition and All Things Considered, which are supported by member stations, underwriting and the Kroc endowment exclusively, don't even figure in...unless you want to count the money the Krocs made from all those Big Macs you've eaten over the years...)

 

[aaronread]

State budgets receive income ONLY ONE way - taxes

States receive income from bonds, from investments (dividends, etc...just like regular people), from the sale of property (land and otherwise), from leasing property and services, from lottery ticket sales, from a constellation of permit and filing fees, from road tolls, and from exploitation/usage of natural resources (mining, etc). Just to name a few.

Usually the largest source of revenue for a state is taxes of one form or another, yes. But it's by no means the only source of income.

 

[Paul_Warren]

One of the challenges here is that the programming that is most dependent on government funding (as I understand it, anyway) is the programming that is least likely to draw any kind of underwriting support. I'm thinking here of services like "Homework Hotline," the daily half-hour that we produce at WXXI...if you consider it a worthwhile service, how else do you fund it?

If it's that niched, perhaps move it to the internet, and lose the expenses for big transmitters and administrative bloat?

 

[Paul_Warren]

"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...

...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.

Bob, advertising is tax exempt because it is a legitimate expense of doing business, just as much as the electric bill. If you choose not to consume the product, you don't have to pay the portion that goes to advertising. If the company did no advertising, the net result could be increased prices as volume dropped.

Dan Burke's pay comes out of shareholders' pockets, and they apparently feel he's worth it. If he stops being worth it, they'll cut his pay and/or find someone else.

I don't criticize high salaries for public broadcasting execs, because I don't know what they're worth. If they are successful at increasing revenues, or can balance the budget every year, they may be worth more than the governor, because he apparently can't do either!

While I lived in the Portland, Oregon area, Michael Miller, the CEO of Goodwill Industries there, nearly doubled revenues to ~ $42 million, but came under criticism for his compensation of about $838K. The critics always struck me as needing remedial math. (Or, maybe more Sesame Street time?)

I think much of the criticism of executive salaries stems from envy bred by the tax code. We've reoriented our society based on coveting what others have earned. Execs gathered the qualifications needed for high-paying jobs, and we didn't. Life's full of choices!

The "shareholders" in publicly-funded broadcasting are everyone who pays taxes, whether they choose to consume the product or not. If you operate your enterprise in a funding model which requires millions of involuntary stakeholders with $2 investments (through taxes), you're going to have to live with the headaches of criticism from millions of partners who know nothing about business.

 

[Philip_Airtime]

End all the waste and abuse of funds in government and then I'll entertain arguments about cutting funding for public broadcasting. As long as Antoine Thompson is allowed to spend $30,000 to print a book about his alleged accomplishments and Chris Lee has carte blanche to spend thousands on a glossy brochure that probably ended up unread in the recycling bins of his former constituents, I don't want to hear from posters who say, "I don't want my tax dollars to subsidize public broadcasting." As I listen to ongoing special coverage of the the unfolding scene in Egypt today, I thank the heavens for NPR and its ability to bring the world home to me. That's far more valuable than any printed material I've ever received from a politician! And I agree with those who point out the business deductions corporate America receives from their ads on radio and TV far exceeds the federal government's investment in public broadcasting. I was appalled to read in the New York Times that the Republican proposal in Congress would not only end funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting but for many programs that benefit the most vulnerable in our society. But don't you dare touch the tax loopholes for advertisers on commercial radio! The hypocrisy!