• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

PBS - General Discussion

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
The "waste of tax dollars" in this case is something of a canard is it not? What is the GRAND TOTAL of all the tax dollars consumed by Public Television in any given year? I know: the standard answer is "ONE dollar is too much". Thanks to Right Wing Talk Radio, we have a significant population today that has a mind-set that all government expenditures are some kind of mortal sin worse than sexual abuse of children and worse than abortion. And if we can tie any kind of human enterprise to "the public dole" then we have proven it to be illegitimate. Conversation ended. GAME OVER.
Click to expand...

Regardless of where people got the idea about government spending, no entity, including the government, can continue to throw money around like a drunken sailor when it does not have any money, and is a trillion dollars in debt. You don't need a right wing talk show host to learn that. You need to study third grade arithmetic!
 
Avid Listener said:
Regardless of where people got the idea about government spending, no entity, including the government, can continue to throw money around like a drunken sailor when it does not have any money,
Click to expand...

Nobody wants to cut federal funding to their local district. Nobody. It's the kiss of death, whether it's a local public TV station or a local military base.
 
TheBigA said:
Nobody wants to cut federal funding to their local district. Nobody. It's the kiss of death, whether it's a local public TV station or a local military base.
Click to expand...

Wrong. A lot of politicians want to. They're just too afraid of not getting re-elected if they do. There's a world of difference between wanting to do something, and doing it because you're afraid of the repercussions.
 
C'mon, people. Politicians know how to cut - or to spend - and put the blame on somebody else or take the credit - whatever they need.

Besides, religious right and right wing politicians don't get votes or money from fans of public television anyway.
 
Last edited:
FredLeonard said:
While public radio (APM, NRP, PRI, PRX...) offers a unique news and information format in many markets and music formats not otherwise heard in many markets, public television does not. We no longer need public television.

(1) PBS produces nothing. It's a distribution service only. Content comes from independent producers (like CTW) and from various member stations (WGBH, WETA, WNYC). PBS is a bureaucracy, a building and a satellite dish. Today's technology offers better, cheaper ways to distribute shows.
Click to expand...

-Every network out there is, to some extent, a distribution service. Some of the most popular shows on NBC, like Friends and E.R., were produced by Warner Bros. You see production credits for CBS Studios and NBC Productions at the end of shows on other networks. Sony is a huge producer. The networks DO produce some of their own shows, but they bid on the shows they think will serve their network best, no matter who produced it.

-Yes, there are more efficient ways to distribute shows, but not to the mass audience they reach through the 354 PBS-member stations. At least not for now.

PBS, like NET before it, is primarily a clearinghouse, giving member stations one-stop shopping for many of the shows they want. PBS has changed that a bit in recent years, encouraging stations to air prime time shows "in pattern," but it's still mainly a clearinghouse.

I agree that some of what PBS does could be done better. But I'm not ready to call it obsolete or unneeded.

(2)
 
newsmark said:
PBS, like NET before it, is primarily a clearinghouse, giving member stations one-stop shopping for many of the shows they want. PBS has changed that a bit in recent years, encouraging stations to air prime time shows "in pattern," but it's still mainly a clearinghouse.
Click to expand...

But it's also a funding mechanism, by virtue of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, for the production of shows. And it obviously is necessary, as proven by KCET Los Angeles, that thought it could easily do without PBS several years ago, and has seen its footprint reduced to the level of a third world nation. Sure, part of that is terrible management at KCET, but it also demonstrates how important PBS membership is even in market #2.
 
FredLeonard said:
LA, Chicago, Washington, Detroit, Tampa, Miami, Orlando, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Charlotte in the top 25 markets have/had public television on UHF.
Click to expand...

Channel 2 in Miami, Channel 11 in Chicago, Channel 9 in Pittsburgh, Channel 3 in Tampa. At the time (early 70s), many older TV's could not access anything higher than channel 13.
 
newsmark said:
-Yes, there are more efficient ways to distribute shows, but not to the mass audience they reach through the 354 PBS-member stations. At least not for now.

PBS, like NET before it, is primarily a clearinghouse, giving member stations one-stop shopping for many of the shows they want. PBS has changed that a bit in recent years, encouraging stations to air prime time shows "in pattern," but it's still mainly a clearinghouse.
Click to expand...

There are better ways to distribute programming to STATIONS than PBS. Just as PRX is a more efficient way to distribute radio shows than NPR. Satellite channels are no longer needed. PBS was the first to ditch AT&T coax but now satellite is behind the curve.

One stop shopping? Hardly. Many/most public television stations take programming from other sources.
 
FredLeonard said:
One stop shopping? Hardly. Many/most public television stations take programming from other sources.
Click to expand...

Ask the folks at KCET LA about taking programming from other sources. They thought they'd save a little money by quitting PBS. Now they're a cut-rate station that no one watches or joins.
 
FredLeonard said:
There are better ways to distribute programming to STATIONS than PBS. Just as PRX is a more efficient way to distribute radio shows than NPR. Satellite channels are no longer needed. PBS was the first to ditch AT&T coax but now satellite is behind the curve.
Click to expand...

I don't think PBS is as far "behind the curve" as you think. They are busy setting up a new "interconnection" system that will facilitate delivering programming to and between member stations through a cloud-based internet solution rather than satellite. Rollout is planned for the fall of 2016 around the time that PBS's current long-term contract with SES for satellite space ends. Presentations here and here from the annual PBS Technology Conference go into further detail.
 
TheBigA said:
Ask the folks at KCET LA about taking programming from other sources. They thought they'd save a little money by quitting PBS. Now they're a cut-rate station that no one watches or joins.
Click to expand...

My cable provider (Charter) dropped KCET for that reason. KOCE (which is channel 50) moved into channel 28 from 50. (and KLCS was channel 65!)
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom