Mitt: I'll Kill Big Bird

[vchimpanzee]

Romney never said, "I'll kill Big Bird." Instead, he said, "I love Big Bird", as he proposed to cut out federal government funding of PBS.

That is correct. I heard him.

He said we have a serious debt problem and anything we don't absolutely, positively need the federal government to fund they shouldn't fund.

So it was a correct thing to say.

I lean liberal so it's not something I want to hear, but in the case of Big Bird I don't think we have a problem.

 

[TheBigA]

According to their own website: Sesame Workshop "receives 35% from corporate, foundation and government support." Look it up.

They receive no FEDERAL appropriation. Period. If money comes from "government," it could be indirect, via state governments, or from the payments from stations. But Romney has no say in non-federal sources. In fact, he has no say in federal sources either, since appropriations come from Congress, not the White House.

And from the beginning PBS has eschewed any revenue arising from the sale of Sesame Street merchandise (or any
other program I reckon) for the purpose of remaining "noncommercial".

That's not exactly true. They're not entitled to it, since Children's Television Workshop is an independent program producer who supplies content to PBS. CTW owns the copyright, and is entitled to profits it receives from that copyright. In 1978, following a dispute with the Department of Education, CTW decided it would license its copyright rather than receive federal funding.

 

[TheBigA]

He just didn't want to borrow money from China to pay for it. Sounds reasonable to me.

He doesn't have to borrow money from China. Lots of other countries and individuals would love to buy US debt.

By the way, it was George Bush, not Obama, who chose to borrow from China.

 

[ajc_trw]

And he also said he was going to "kill Big Bird".

When? Citation, please.

+1

 

[Carmine5]

According to their own website: Sesame Workshop "receives 35% from corporate, foundation and government support." Look it up.

They receive no FEDERAL appropriation. Period. If money comes from "government," it could be indirect, via state governments, or from the payments from stations. But Romney has no say in non-federal sources. In fact, he has no say in federal sources either, since appropriations come from Congress, not the White House.

And from the beginning PBS has eschewed any revenue arising from the sale of Sesame Street merchandise (or any
other program I reckon) for the purpose of remaining "noncommercial".

That's not exactly true. They're not entitled to it, since Children's Television Workshop is an independent program producer who supplies content to PBS. CTW owns the copyright, and is entitled to profits it receives from that copyright. In 1978, following a dispute with the Department of Education, CTW decided it would license its copyright rather than receive federal funding.

Or maybe they mean the Canadians. The fact is you don't know what they mean when they say that some of their funds come from the government (unless they're flip-flopping from what is stated on their website).

Yes, of course, even as president Romney would have no direct power in addressing how federal monies would be spent--just as he would have no power to repeal Obamacare. He is merely expressing his stand (and those of most other Republicans) on issues. You can spare me the civics lesson.

 

[TheBigA]

The fact is you don't know what they mean when they say that some of their funds come from the government (unless they're flip-flopping from what is stated on their website).

But I DO know they receive no federal appropriation.

 

[mjlarochelle]

To me, public broadcasting is always an easy target for cutbacks by right-wing governments. Canada has had the same issue whenever the (Progressive) Conservatives are in power: massive cuts to the CBC were announced in 1984 just after the PCs were elected, and then again this year. Governments claim it's about saving money, but given how little either the Canadian or American federal governments give to public broadcasting, to me it seems as though right-leaning governments just want to eliminate left-leaning media.

 

[firepoint525]

This thread is yet another example of why DTTJ needs to word his subject lines more carefully. :

 

[RicoGregg]

Video: Big Bird stars in Obama ad

Barack Obama approved this message:

http://www.deadline.com/2012/10/big-bird-featured-in-obamas-new-attack-ad/#respond

You may have to scroll up when you get there to get to the video, but it's there.

 

[quadraphonic]

If Romney has said "I'll kill Big Bird" out of his own mouth, I cannot find it.
If it will put an end to political lies, I will kill Big Bird myself. I'll consider it my contribution to society for the day.
But know that Obama put the idea in my head, because Romney never said it. So put the blame there. Like they did with the 'innocence of muslims' video.

 

[TheBigA]

It's not politics, it's marketing, something those of us who work in the media understand. Both candidates and their teams are adept at it. Run through the "talking points," and ignore the facts. And the audience, for the most part, doesn't care. The camps believe what they want to believe, and there is no truth. Just the marketing we choose to believe. Until something tragic happens that actually affects us.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

If Romney has said "I'll kill Big Bird" out of his own mouth, I cannot find it.

Unfortunately that is the way the game of politics is played today. What ever Mr. Romney says, those who disagree with him will take what he says and tell us "This is what that means" and then This-is-what-that-means becomes the claim, the quote.

I hope it doesn't come as a shock to you to learn that the Romney people also take things Mr. Obama says and the tell us: "This is what that means" and then This-is-what-that-means becomes the claim from the other side.

In the court room the lawyer can rise and ask the judge to have the clerk read from the transcript and the judge can make an on-the-spot declaration on what was said. For better or for worse, that doesn't work in the game of politics.

The president played that game the next day when he said something like: "Mr Romney wants to be easy on Wall Street, but wants to declare war on Sesame street." We know that is not what Romeny said. But we also know that it is an acceptable way to size up what he said.

What did Truman say? If you can't stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen.

 

[justpassingthough]

Agreed. Its not really any more or less truthful than Romney's claim that Obama wants to ruin Medicare by taking $716 million out of the system over the next ten years (which is the same amount and manner in which Paul Ryan reduced Medicare spending in his budget proposal). Politicians use hyperbole to get their point across, but reasonable, rational adults can sort through the hyperbole and the marketing and get to the heart of what the candidates are proposing.

 

[TheBigA]

Politicians use hyperbole to get their point across, but reasonable, rational adults can sort through the hyperbole and the marketing and get to the heart of what the candidates are proposing.

Sure.

 

[justpassingthough]

Politicians use hyperbole to get their point across, but reasonable, rational adults can sort through the hyperbole and the marketing and get to the heart of what the candidates are proposing.

Sure.

You'll notice that I didn't speak to the number of American adults that were either reasonable or rational.

 

[TheBigA]

You'll notice that I didn't speak to the number of American adults that were either reasonable or rational.

Yep. I'm in commercial radio. I know the numbers.

 

[dhett]

Had the subject read "Obama: Mitt will kill Big Bird", then there's no discussion. That's how politics is played - everybody knows that. But the subject attributed the statement to Mitt Romney. I guess the OP also believes that Sarah Palin stated that she can see Russia from her house, too. :

 

[trapper12]

I really don't think Sesame Workshop has anything to worry about if a President Romney pulls funding for PBS. How much money do they make in sales of the Sesame Street merchandise? And it's not like they don't have sponsors of the show anyway like Beaches resorts, Earth's Best organic food and others. With PBS it's like they have the commercials in the beginning and end of shows anyway. This Old House has Home Depot, GMC, Lumber Liquidators and others as sponsors.

http://www.sesameworkshop.org/partners/supporters/index.html
http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/tv/underwriters

Just run the commercials.

I have said the same thing on other forums and keep getting told that has nothing to do with it. From what I have read they ie: Big Bird rake in between 300 and 400 million in royalties from merchandise. In my opinion that has a lot to do with it and should be more than enough to make the show more than self supporting.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I have said the same thing on other forums and keep getting told that has nothing to do with it. From what I have read they ie: Big Bird rake in between 300 and 400 million in royalties from merchandise. In my opinion that has a lot to do with it and should be more than enough to make the show more than self supporting.

That sounds like a workable formula at first blush. But stations carry other programs that do not have the charisma and stature of Sesame Street. Those other programs may not create a self-supporting cash flow, much less an overly-abundant flow like Big Bird does.

Is it possible that the American people are willing to let the tax man have a few extra pennies that go to keep the other programs going that may be more useful to some families than is Sesame Street?

What is our political logic on what our civilization, our society, our population, our tax-payers want to do about the second, third and fourth tier programming on PBS and NPR.

 

[recto101]

I have said the same thing on other forums and keep getting told that has nothing to do with it. From what I have read they ie: Big Bird rake in between 300 and 400 million in royalties from merchandise. In my opinion that has a lot to do with it and should be more than enough to make the show more than self supporting.

That sounds like a workable formula at first blush. But stations carry other programs that do not have the charisma and stature of Sesame Street. Those other programs may not create a self-supporting cash flow, much less an overly-abundant flow like Big Bird does.

Is it possible that the American people are willing to let the tax man have a few extra pennies that go to keep the other programs going that may be more useful to some families than is Sesame Street?

What is our political logic on what our civilization, our society, our population, our tax-payers want to do about the second, third and fourth tier programming on PBS and NPR.

Wait How about the PBS affiliates that do air Local Investigative reporting such as KQED9. As far as I know some of those shows do not have Corporate underwriters like Sesame Street does. Mainly the sponsors are non-profit groups.