Gimme Gimme Gimme

[Bob1370]

Advice to BigA...don't bother to use logic and fact in engaging with "Voice of Reason." For reasons he doesn't choose to share with us, he has a passionate hatred for public broadcasting and an animus toward one particular manager. If he were to act in the spirit of full disclosure it might at least help us all understand what moves him.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[jfc40ts]

I've seen quite a lot of threads on this site concerning public broadcasting and have seen VOR lodge his complaints. I don't know him (her) or anyone else here but I have come away with some thoughts on the subject...


VOR may know Mr. Silverstein and find him personally repugnant, but I think the wrath is directed at him due to his position at WXXI and all the tangibles associated with it. In other words, if VOR was in Buffalo, the wrath would be directed at the CEO of WNED.

Despite the repeated attempts of The Big A and others to explain the whys and wherefores of public broadcasting and all its complexities, VOR seems to approach it from the perspective of John and Mary Listener/viewer. While public broadcasting certainly isn't the rf equivalent of the Buffalo City Mission, VOR's position seems to be that these organizations should be altrustic in nature from top to bottom. In other words. it's just plain wrong for the heads of such organizations to be making enormous sums of money while having their hands out asking for more. It appears to fly in the face of the organization's mission statement.

I'm sure the 1995 arrest, conviction, and sentencing of former United Way chairman William Aramony for embezzling organization funds while ekeing out a living on a mere $400k/yr may also be a factor here. In VOR's defense however, I have never seen him accuse anyone of actual or implied criminal intent or behavior. The axe to grind here seems to be one of moral grounds. We're all geared differently.


I'm a regular viewer of this site and hope I haven't offended VOR or anyone else here. What seems obvious to me seems to be more complex to others. Hope my take helps Bob1370 and others...

 

[TheBigA]

In other words. it's just plain wrong for the heads of such organizations to be making enormous sums of money while having their hands out asking for more. It appears to fly in the face of the organization's mission statement.

That depends on what you think the mission statement is. It's been my experience that the harshest critics of public broadcasting have no idea what the mission statement is, and quite often view public broadcasting as though it's either an arm of the government, or a monastery where employees take an oath of poverty. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The critics also don't understand the concept of a non-profit corporation. They only see things as either government funded, or profit making. But there are loads of non-profit educational institutions that accept some federal and state funding, but also operate with multi-million dollar budgets. The best example would be private colleges. This thread is based on the salary of the WXXI CEO. But in context, he makes less money than the Chancellor of Syracuse University. She makes almost $600,000 a year plus a $500,000 bonus! Syracuse University receives federal and state funding. How can someone who makes that much money justify receiving the federal grants? Isn't that the exact same question you ask about the WXXI CEO? He's making a third of her money, and federal funds are a smaller share of his organization's budget. And guess what? She isn't the highest paid person at SU. The football coach makes even more.

As I've stated in this thread, we have billion dollar corporations that receive government funding. Oil rich Arab sheiks who receive billions in government funding. And if the Republicans are successful in cutting funding to public broadcasting, that money will be given to billionaires as tax cuts. It's Robin Hood in reverse. That last point should be the kicker.

 

[Bob1370]

"Here's the irony: The reason the tea party wants to cut funding to public broadcasting is so they can finance further tax cuts to people making more than $250,000 a year."

That's PART of it. But you have to remember as well, that a lot of the stations that broadcast the Tea Party agenda are being hurt competitively in some of their biggest markets by the rise in popularity of nonpartisan NPR stations. (Check the rise of NPR affiliates in markets like Boston, Washington and San Francisco against commercial competition.) Many of the stations in steepest decline are owned by Clear Channel, a company in which Bain Capital holds a major equity position. We all know who among the Presidential candidates depends on Bain Capital for much of his wealth and ongoing income...and has also proposed defunding and consequently cripppling publilc broadcasting.

Connect the dots, folks...as the late Fred Rogers might say if he were here now, "hey kids...can you say, conflict of interest?"

 

[SirRoxalot]

Well, Bob, you could turn your arguement around and say "Why should the government be funding a broadcasting system that competes with private enterprise?" If the public stations are doing so well, why do they need tax money?

I'm not advocating cuts in funding to public broadcasting, but I am suggesting that you be careful on tying CPB to any political party. At its inception, that funding was supposed to be used for educational programming that was likely to NOT be profitable, but would serve the community. The amount of money that goes to WXXI, for example, is probably not enough to cover their ancillary broadcast services like WXXI World, Homework Hotline, WXXI Create, and City 12.

 

[TheBigA]

At its inception, that funding was supposed to be used for educational programming that was likely to NOT be profitable, but would serve the community.

That's still the case. If it was profitable, commercial stations would do it. The fact that it's popular doesn't mean it's profitable. Public radio doesn't work that way. You can have extremely popular shows with a bunch of freeloaders as listeners.

Public broadcasting (radio and TV) doesn't compete with private enterprise because it doesn't compete for advertising. To remove all government funding and replace it with a quasi-commercial system will in fact make it a competitor. And it will remove the mission to create educational and alternative programming, and make public broadcasting exactly like commercial. Given the job commercial broadcasting is doing, it's obviously not the right way to go for serving the public.

 

[Bob1370]

"Well, Bob, you could turn your arguement around and say "Why should the government be funding a broadcasting system that competes with private enterprise?" If the public stations are doing so well, why do they need tax money?"

That argument collapses completely on close scrutiny. The purpose, mission and actual practice of public broadcasting is to provide a service that commercial stations can't or won't. These days, one of the things commercial broadcasters for the most part choose not to provide, but public stations do, is nonpartisan, even-handed discussion of public events and issues from an inclusive, everyone's-welcome viewpoint. It so happens that this is precisely the approach that's winning a lot of friends (and substantial audiences) in a lot of markets, and that's got some of the commercial broadcasters worried. Of course all they have to do to compete effectively is do it themselves.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

VOR may know Mr. Silverstein and find him personally repugnant, but I think the wrath is directed at him due to his position at WXXI and all the tangibles associated with it. In other words, if VOR was in Buffalo, the wrath would be directed at the CEO of WNED.
I'm a regular viewer of this site and hope I haven't offended VOR or anyone else here. What seems obvious to me seems to be more complex to others. Hope my take helps Bob1370 and others...

First of all you have not offended me. I've been taking the heat here for the longest time regarding my views on overpaid not-for-profit CEO's.

As for your first point, there is no personal "beef" between myself and Mr. Silverstein. I just honestly feel that if the general public was made aware of just how much money some executives at these stations made they would be shocked.

Let's look at this from another perspective. I just read in a New York City newspaper that a superintendent of schools was pulling down a yearly salary of $500,000. Now be honest here, how would you feel if this happened in the school district you lived in; especially if your school taxes were going up an average of three percent every year?

I will repeat once again that I do not have anything against public broadcasting. For years I personally donated to my local public television and radio stations. However when I discovered the amount of money being paid out to a few executives I raised the question why so much? That is when the avalanche of criticism came crashing down on my head for me to question why such high salaries and benefits are paid to the heads of not-for-profit organizations.

As for taxpayer dollars being spent to fund CPR, PBS, NPR, one should take a hard look at what faces this country when it comes to the "fiscal cliff" that is fast approaching. The reality is that the federal government is either going to tax the hell out of us, or cut back spending on programs. And if you don't think public broadcasting is among those programs that will lose federal funding, then you are in for a major shock. Lets put it another way. Would you rather see your Social Security, Medicare, and similar programs lose federal funding, or instead see the elimination of federal dollars for Public Broadcasting? If a poll was taken I am willing to bet that a vast majority would choose the latter when it comes to cutting back or eliminating taxpayer dollars.

The answer for the survival of public broadcasting is quite simple. For those who enjoy programs from PBS and NPR, then write a check and support those stations. If some stations fail, so be it. Failure in the business world happens all the time. How many commercial stations over the years have had to close their doors? Look at the station in Hornell as an example.

$400,000 a year (more than the governor of New York State makes) plus benefits is just too much money in my opinion to pay someone who is constantly on the air, or writing newspaper editorials, bemoaning the financial plight of public broadcasting.

 

[TheBigA]

Failure in the business world happens all the time. How many commercial stations over the years have had to close their doors? Look at the station in Hornell as an example.

But public broadcasting ISN'T a business. Comparing it to a business is your mistake. It's a charity, and the heads of charities DO make 6 figure salaries, as I pointed out with the Red Cross. You brought up the Superintendent of NYC schools. ALL of his salary and benefits comes from taxpayer money. Same with the governor. In the case of the CEO of WXXI, NONE of his salary and benefits comes from taxpayer money. The taxpayer money is specifically directed to certain expenses, all clearly spelled out in their tax filing posted on their web site.

Another difference between public broadcasting and commercial businesses is that public broadcasting was created by an Act of Congress. In it, there were promises made by the government to the institution regarding government funding. Any changes to those promises requires another Act of Congress. That's what they did in the 1980s when they fundamentally changed the funding of public broadcasting. This is very similar to the changes Republicans want to make to Social Security. The government made promises to the American people. Now, Republicans want to change that. They can't simply defund Social Security. They will need an Act of Congress to change that situation. Of course, now that a Democrat was elected President, it's far less likely that all federal funding will be cut.

The fiscal cliff was not caused by public broadcasting. It was not caused by Social Security or Medicare either. It was caused by two unfunded wars and a huge tax cut. That is where the problem lies. The American public should not be forced to lose public services to give tax cuts to the wealthy, including the CEO of WXXI. As I pointed out, by campaigning against the funding cut, he is literally costing himself money through an increase in his own taxes. But he will gladly pay the extra taxes on his own salary in order to see the institution he runs continue.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

In the case of the CEO of WXXI, NONE of his salary and benefits comes from taxpayer money. The taxpayer money is specifically directed to certain expenses, all clearly spelled out in their tax filing posted on their web site.

Allow me to respond to your second point first. Not to bring politics into this discussion, but there was an effort by some talking heads in the news media and especially members of the Democrat Party to criticize Mitt Romney for releasing just two years of his tax records.

For years WXXI's 990 tax form was not updated from the previous fiscal year. The last time I looked that information dated back by more than a fiscal year or two. Also I noticed that in previous 990 forms Mr. Silverstein's salary was very easy to find; that is until inquiries about his exact salary and benefits were not only raised on this board but also brought to light on the Democrat & Chronicle newspaper web site before the newspaper started charging people to read the paper's on-line service.

Now to your first point. You state that not one penny of Mr. Silverstein's salary comes from taxpayer dollars. Okay say you are right. So where does his salary and perks (like a new SUV every other year) come from?

There are numerous fundraisers held each year in which the public is told their donations goes towards keeping the radio and TV stations operating. So does a portion of that money go towards his salary?

Let's also not forget that if you check out the increased number of Vice Presidents since Silverstein took over, those combined salaries total over one million dollars a year. Are those salaries also paid for in part by pledge drive donations?

WXXI, like many other public broadcasting operations, also receives grants. Does a portion of those grants pay the salaries of top executives?

Since WXXI is a public entity, and not a privately owned company, the public has the right to know where the money is coming from and who determines the salaries paid out to the top executives.

I am certain many people would be interested in your response.

 

[TheBigA]

For years WXXI's 990 tax form was not updated from the previous fiscal year. The last time I looked that information dated back by more than a fiscal year or two.

You should look again. I was easily able to get the 2011 990 tax form.

You have a lot of opinions for someone who hasn't really done any homework. Do some homework, compare the information at this station with other similar stations, and learn more about non-profits. The answers to all your questions are available online if you'd just do a little bit of work. The federal government is very careful with taxpayer money. They expect a lot of paperwork in return for the money they provide. They are the caretakers of this money, not you, and they carry the weight of federal fines and even jail time if their money is misused. So before you make a lot of unsubstatiated and uneducated claims, you should do your homework.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

For years WXXI's 990 tax form was not updated from the previous fiscal year. The last time I looked that information dated back by more than a fiscal year or two.

You should look again. I was easily able to get the 2011 990 tax form.

You have a lot of opinions for someone who hasn't really done any homework. Do some homework, compare the information at this station with other similar stations, and learn more about non-profits. The answers to all your questions are available online if you'd just do a little bit of work. The federal government is very careful with taxpayer money. They expect a lot of paperwork in return for the money they provide. They are the caretakers of this money, not you, and they carry the weight of federal fines and even jail time if their money is misused. So before you make a lot of unsubstatiated and uneducated claims, you should do your homework.

In other words you can't answer the questions that I've posed.

 

[TheBigA]

In other words you can't answer the questions that I've posed.

Did I say that? I told you that all the answers are posted on the site...if you'd expend the energy to look.