-
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
ROMNEY: CUT FUNDING TO PBS, ALLOW ADVERTISING
- Thread starter gregg75
- Start date
Why does it have to be either/or? Canada's CBC is government-funded with a lot of advertising, but there's no advertising during childrens programming.
BMR said:
I don't wish to retract this, but arguably I shouldn't have launched straight in with such a political remark as that.
Anyway I will say this and then leave the thread.
According to Wiki, PBS costs around 2 dollars per US citizen a year- 8 bucks for a family of four. If european style TV taxes of 200-300 dollars a year are too high (and I certainly struggle to pay mine), surely 8 bucks a year is a bargain, and it gives those who can't afford cable an alternative to the networks.
Legally, weaning PBS from federal funding and having them show infomercials is easier said than done -- many PBS stations operate on channels allocated for educational use, which, according to FCC regulations, prohibit commercials. In order for PBS to graduate from a network with funding announcements to a commercial network like all the rest, the FCC would have to intervene, as would Congress.
In addition, some PBS stations are owned by local school boards, colleges, and state ETV commissions, some of them forbidding commercial advertising as part of their policy.
In addition, some PBS stations are owned by local school boards, colleges, and state ETV commissions, some of them forbidding commercial advertising as part of their policy.
Mr. Romney would have more of a case if commercial broadcasters did a better job of serving children than they do.
Most local commercial broadcasters long ago eliminated localized children's TV shows, like Romper Room and Bozo The Clown. Now, the majority of the children's offerings are on Saturday morning. This comes after various special interest groups got laws passed making the commercialization of children's programming more difficult. By contrast, large portions of the broadcast day on PBS stations are made up with various children's programming.
So my suggestion to Mr. Romney is before he suggests commercials in PBS children's shows, he at least familiarize himself with the rules regarding those ads in commercial broadcasting. These Republican ideas would carry more weight if the commercial, non-government entities responsible for things like broadcasting, health care, and insurance hadn't done such an awful job during the past ten years. One would think someone sould be looking out for the public. I thought that was the government's role. This party seems to want to get out of public service. Not good when broadcasting is supposed to serve the public interest.
Most local commercial broadcasters long ago eliminated localized children's TV shows, like Romper Room and Bozo The Clown. Now, the majority of the children's offerings are on Saturday morning. This comes after various special interest groups got laws passed making the commercialization of children's programming more difficult. By contrast, large portions of the broadcast day on PBS stations are made up with various children's programming.
So my suggestion to Mr. Romney is before he suggests commercials in PBS children's shows, he at least familiarize himself with the rules regarding those ads in commercial broadcasting. These Republican ideas would carry more weight if the commercial, non-government entities responsible for things like broadcasting, health care, and insurance hadn't done such an awful job during the past ten years. One would think someone sould be looking out for the public. I thought that was the government's role. This party seems to want to get out of public service. Not good when broadcasting is supposed to serve the public interest.
F
FreddyE1977
Guest
I suspect this will be the Republican Party position pretty much across the board, with at least 80% of candidates
for all Federal offices. We are just in a major budgetary mess right now and some tough decisions have to be made.
And in the grand scheme of things, public TV, as much as any of us might enjoy it, is a rather low priority.
for all Federal offices. We are just in a major budgetary mess right now and some tough decisions have to be made.
And in the grand scheme of things, public TV, as much as any of us might enjoy it, is a rather low priority.
I was about to post a reply pointing out that we will have a hard time carrying this discussion forward in a meaningful way. A vocal part of the American public is polarized on the topic of public broadcasting, and we have little evidence that the pre-set prejudice for or against PBS and NPR and NCE has any valid logice to back it up.
This is a much bigger issue than just children's programming.
There are a lot of "good citizen" corporations who will fund PBS... including children's programs... as long as it is "public policy" to have such programming in a non-commercial setting. They can explain to the board and to the stockholders that we are doing this because it is part of our citizenship obligation to support well-rounded and informed citizens. The minute we open the flood-gates of paid commercials on PBS and the other NCE, public-broadcasting outlets, the board of directors and the stockholders will expect those "buys" to meet the efficiency standards of typical commercial programming. That won't fly. If it would, commercial broadcasters would be doing all that programming and leaving PBS in the dust.
So we are back to a very basic questions. Is having intelligent, balanced programming for listeners and viewers of ALL AGES important to the survival of democracy/self-government... or is it some useless ego-trip on the part of the programmers at the public broadcasting stations and an ego-trip on the part of the family foundations that pour a lot of money into public broadcasting.
We can have a good healthy discussion on what makes for a healthy civilization..... or we can stoop to the lowest-comon-denomiator and have a food-fight about whether my political dogma is better than your political dogma.
The republicans are making it pretty clear that when they are on the campaign trail they are not interested is discussing healthy civilization. In their private moments not in the middle of an election cycle, the adults in the Republican party understand AND SUPPORT those things that make for a healthy, thriving civilization.
This is a much bigger issue than just children's programming.
There are a lot of "good citizen" corporations who will fund PBS... including children's programs... as long as it is "public policy" to have such programming in a non-commercial setting. They can explain to the board and to the stockholders that we are doing this because it is part of our citizenship obligation to support well-rounded and informed citizens. The minute we open the flood-gates of paid commercials on PBS and the other NCE, public-broadcasting outlets, the board of directors and the stockholders will expect those "buys" to meet the efficiency standards of typical commercial programming. That won't fly. If it would, commercial broadcasters would be doing all that programming and leaving PBS in the dust.
So we are back to a very basic questions. Is having intelligent, balanced programming for listeners and viewers of ALL AGES important to the survival of democracy/self-government... or is it some useless ego-trip on the part of the programmers at the public broadcasting stations and an ego-trip on the part of the family foundations that pour a lot of money into public broadcasting.
We can have a good healthy discussion on what makes for a healthy civilization..... or we can stoop to the lowest-comon-denomiator and have a food-fight about whether my political dogma is better than your political dogma.
The republicans are making it pretty clear that when they are on the campaign trail they are not interested is discussing healthy civilization. In their private moments not in the middle of an election cycle, the adults in the Republican party understand AND SUPPORT those things that make for a healthy, thriving civilization.
TheBigA said:
The majority of this programming is also terrible and poorly monitored. There should have been quite a few more rules put in the original policy, such as each program must be different in every three hour block (no more block scheduling one show to get it out of the way) and each episode can only be run only a maximum few times per year, and programming must be rotated out every few years. That some broadcasters can get away with airing ancient episodes of Teen Kids News back-to-back-to-back which are completely out of date, just air the same episodes of Mustard Pancakes every month over and over, and air shows like Go For It that have not produced episodes for ten years is appalling (I know these standards would kill Saved by the Bell reruns too, but nobody has learned a lesson from that show since 1992...well besides caffeine pills make Jessie Spano sing "I'm So Excited" a little too scarily
).Many stations also get off cheap by importing stuff from CBC, CTV and other Canadian cable channels. It's understandable to thrown in a few programs here and there, but most of the programs need to pertain to American audiences. PBS is pretty much the default broadcaster for children these days because the FCC has completely dropped the ball on strict E/I enforcement for commercial broadcasters, letting shows get by just because they have the bug and a summary that is just given out by the producer itself and finessed to pass the FCC inspectors; KidVid 398's (the quarterly E/I reports) should not allow boilerplate program rationales like that.
As for the advertising issue, if it's restricted advertising (say, there are CBC-like limits on descriptions and types of shots that can be used in an ad and there are time limits), I am for it; all the better to eradicate the awful self-help and nostalgic milking programming that makes up pledge breaks these days. But it needs to be slowly evaluated and evaluated by the local stations themselves before the FCC ever puts it in wholesale, and the obvious suspects such as lawyers, direct 800's and pharmaceuticals should be put under high scrutiny. Some may stick with the old public television model and if it works for them, so be it.
I'd rather see the E/I requirements eliminated. Commercial broadcasters should not be forced to air childrens' programming.
However that's beyond the scope of this thread.
However that's beyond the scope of this thread.
R
Radio-X
Guest
A few things:
1) Yes, PBS' government support is a trifle...less than $2/per person per year! However, this does not factor in the generous support of "Viewers Like You" who donate $150 every year for a nice coffee mug.
2) Romney is not thinking this out. As mentioned earlier, most PBS affiliates are on a NON-COMM station allotment. This would mean changing the definition of a "commercial". Or the FCC can get involved with playing favorites exempting PBS only from NCE allotments (religious and other educational stations will scream if this happens).
Personally, I'd love to see a commercial for local businesses who support the PBS cause rather than all these psuedo-commercials called underwriting that the big dogs like ADM, Home Depot, etc place on the shows. Dont do commercial breaks, just do like most European broadcasters do and allow up to 3-5 minutes of advertising per hour in between shows. Maybe the local "beg-athons" will be greatly reduced...which may increase ratings!
Radio-X
1) Yes, PBS' government support is a trifle...less than $2/per person per year! However, this does not factor in the generous support of "Viewers Like You" who donate $150 every year for a nice coffee mug.
2) Romney is not thinking this out. As mentioned earlier, most PBS affiliates are on a NON-COMM station allotment. This would mean changing the definition of a "commercial". Or the FCC can get involved with playing favorites exempting PBS only from NCE allotments (religious and other educational stations will scream if this happens).
Personally, I'd love to see a commercial for local businesses who support the PBS cause rather than all these psuedo-commercials called underwriting that the big dogs like ADM, Home Depot, etc place on the shows. Dont do commercial breaks, just do like most European broadcasters do and allow up to 3-5 minutes of advertising per hour in between shows. Maybe the local "beg-athons" will be greatly reduced...which may increase ratings!
Radio-X
F
FreddyE1977
Guest
or to put it another way....not many GOP candidates in this cycle want to face their base telling them
that they support continued funding of PBS and NPR. An Romney in particular is going to face some
uphill challenges in placating his base. This appears to be a rather low-risk method of doing so.
that they support continued funding of PBS and NPR. An Romney in particular is going to face some
uphill challenges in placating his base. This appears to be a rather low-risk method of doing so.
radiodxrichmond said:
- If Romney were elected, he would have little trouble getting major initiatives through the FCC. He'd have the power to nominate members to the Commission, and even if Obama were to fill all the open seats before Romney's inauguration, chances are VERY good a seat would become available fairly shortly into a Romney presidency.
- The Communications Act would be an impediment to this change. However, the Communications Act is an Act of Congress -- and Congress can amend it. It would be a partisan question -- Romney would probably need a majority in both houses of Congress to get the necessary changes through. I don't *think* the Democrats would filibuster to prevent it from getting through the Senate -- but that's hard to tell at this point.
- Religious stations are getting at least as close to the border between what's "underwriting" and what's a "commercial" as PBS stations are. I don't think we'd see any real difference in programming on religious stations on non-commercial allocations if we allowed advertising across the board. There'd be no need to limit the relaxation to PBS affiliates.
I do think GRC brings up the most important question here: would any commercials that could be sold bring more revenue than would be lost from donors?
w9wi said:
I don't know about that. Both Powell and Martin tried to further de-regulate broadcasting during the Bush administration, and neither got anywhere. I'd suggest what Romney is talking about would be more controversial than de-regulation. It would be making a wholesale change in the broadcasting landscape, allowing non-commercial stations to run commercials. The last time this was brought up, it was strongly opposed by the NAB and other organizations. Right now, it's very difficult to get advertising for broadcasting, especially for programming aimed outside the target sales demos. This is one of those ideas that sounds good, but lacks any practicality.
Allowing advertising on non-commercial channels (radio and television) is not requiring such advertising. Advertising should be allowed on all frequencies. That would include mom-and-pop businesses that would be the best source of income for low-power stations that could be allowed under recent federal legislation. As now written, LPFMs could not sell time.
Underwriting notices aren't too far from being commercials. Let's lift the hypocrisy that is involved. Going back to point one, allowing such ads, such underwriting, is not requiring such advertising.
Then there is the issue of how much government funding should go toward radio and television. Do we need a government-funded system in this country? Or is it one more of the thousand cuts that eventually may bleed out this republic? Think about it.
There is necessarily caveats here. A&E, Bravo and other networks meant to be, as one of my relatives with a college education put it, artsy-fartsy, went low-brow because that's where the commercials are. Is it in fact possible to have the sort of quality one does find, admittedly amid the politics, on public stations?
Also, there are restrictions that public stations face that are not necessary. Let's go back to a 2009 decision ...
[/url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061603201.html[/url]
How does a station properly cover the old "public interest, convenience and necessity" if it cannot include every aspect of the public interest?
An option available to commercially-licensed religious stations could be a model for public stations. From an October 2011 story in the McKeesport (PA) Daily News (unfortunately, I did not find it online):
"Cornerstone TeleVision reflects the hard work ethic and the character of the people of Western Pennsylvania," said sales manager Tom McGough.
CTVN uses commercial channels in Wall (WPCB-40) and Altoona (WKBS-47), a network of low-power stations across the tri-state area and satellite-fed affiliates across the United States.
It also has a covenant relationship with Good Friends, the Canadian ministry of the Rev. Rod Hembree, son of the late CTVN president Rev. Ron Hembree and host of "Quick Study," a daily Bible study that began at WPCB as "Project 90."
CTVN's "Hope Connection" includes outreaches to more than 100 prisons and its Caring Hearts orphanage in Mexico.
As a 401 (c) 3 organization, 80 percent of CTVN's revenue must come from viewers, but 20 percent can come from advertisers, including regional businesses, many of them familiar to Mon-Yough viewers.
"What I seek after are ministries," McGough said. "We allow Cornerstone to be a platform for ministries," particularly in Pittsburgh and Altoona markets, though some do advertise nationally over CTVN.
Underwriting notices aren't too far from being commercials. Let's lift the hypocrisy that is involved. Going back to point one, allowing such ads, such underwriting, is not requiring such advertising.
Then there is the issue of how much government funding should go toward radio and television. Do we need a government-funded system in this country? Or is it one more of the thousand cuts that eventually may bleed out this republic? Think about it.
There is necessarily caveats here. A&E, Bravo and other networks meant to be, as one of my relatives with a college education put it, artsy-fartsy, went low-brow because that's where the commercials are. Is it in fact possible to have the sort of quality one does find, admittedly amid the politics, on public stations?
Also, there are restrictions that public stations face that are not necessary. Let's go back to a 2009 decision ...
[/url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061603201.html[/url]
How does a station properly cover the old "public interest, convenience and necessity" if it cannot include every aspect of the public interest?
An option available to commercially-licensed religious stations could be a model for public stations. From an October 2011 story in the McKeesport (PA) Daily News (unfortunately, I did not find it online):
"Cornerstone TeleVision reflects the hard work ethic and the character of the people of Western Pennsylvania," said sales manager Tom McGough.
CTVN uses commercial channels in Wall (WPCB-40) and Altoona (WKBS-47), a network of low-power stations across the tri-state area and satellite-fed affiliates across the United States.
It also has a covenant relationship with Good Friends, the Canadian ministry of the Rev. Rod Hembree, son of the late CTVN president Rev. Ron Hembree and host of "Quick Study," a daily Bible study that began at WPCB as "Project 90."
CTVN's "Hope Connection" includes outreaches to more than 100 prisons and its Caring Hearts orphanage in Mexico.
As a 401 (c) 3 organization, 80 percent of CTVN's revenue must come from viewers, but 20 percent can come from advertisers, including regional businesses, many of them familiar to Mon-Yough viewers.
"What I seek after are ministries," McGough said. "We allow Cornerstone to be a platform for ministries," particularly in Pittsburgh and Altoona markets, though some do advertise nationally over CTVN.
- Status